Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Rotherham, in the room of the right hon. Brian Kevin O'Malley, deceased.—[Mr. Michael Cocks.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Bill to be considered upon Monday next at Seven o'clock.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Monday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

Banking and Insurance

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the operation of existing legislation on banking and insurance.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The supervision of insurance companies is being progressively strengthened under the Insurance Companies Act 1974 and I do not consider that fresh powers should be sought from Parliament for the time being. As to banking, a White Paper is at an advanced stage of preparation and I must ask my hon. Friend to await its publication.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the poor public services offered by too many banks, and in view of the lack of invest-

ment in industry and the unpatriotic behaviour of speculators who are damaging the pound by taking investment out of the country, would it not be appropriate now to introduce emergency measures to take more public, democratic control over investment by extending public ownership into banking and insurance?

Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have already indicated to the House that the Government have no such plans at present.

Mr. McCrindle: In view of the vast discrepancy between what the House was told by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the strident tones of the latest Labour Party document, should not the Minister—first as a Minister and second as a member of the Labour Party —give added reassurance to the insurance and banking industry, upon which so much of our foreign earnings depends?

Mr. Davis: The Opposition having been soundly thrashed on this issue already by my right hon. Friends, it will avail the hon. Gentleman nothing to try to resuscitate a position in respect of which his party was so abysmally defeated.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Should not we learn from France, Germany, Italy and Japan, where most of the main banks and insurance companies are publicly owned with great success? Have they not steered more investment into industry than have our banks and insurance companies?

Mr. Davis: The Bank of England is, of course, already publicly owned. So far as insurance is concerned, for which my Department is the sponsoring Department, my hon. Friend will realise that the criteria affecting policyholders and their interests are, in a sense, better maintained in this country than they are abroad. However, that is a matter for wider public debate than is possible at Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is satisfied with the outcome of his visit to UNCTAD IV in Nairobi.

Mr. Brittan: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the UNCTAD IV meeting at Nairobi.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the outcome of the UNCTAD IV meeting; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): I intend to make an oral statement very shortly.

Mr. Renton: Although I welcome that reply, is it not increasingly and tragically clear that the Secretary of State went to Nairobi without any brief whatsoever? Did not this lack of forethought come particularly badly from Britain, a country so dependent on the less-developed nations for its supply of raw materials?

Mr. Dell: It might be better if we left that matter to my statement. It is quite untrue that I went to Nairobi without any forethought. I went there with practical suggestions for action in the commodity field, some of which have been accepted in the resolution on commodities by the conference.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the strangeness of his original answer? Was not this an opportunity to make a public statement? Will he give an assurance that the public statement will be made in this House? Why were the Government not convinced of the need for a common fund? That seemed to be apparent from the communications coming out of Nairobi.

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend says it is strange that I did not take this opportunity to make a statement. I did not take this opportunity to make a statement because it would have taken a lot of time during Questions, and one can make a statement on a subject such as this outside Question Time. That was my judgment. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that a proper account would be given to the House, and it seemed better to do that by means of an oral statement.
As to why the Government did not go along with the idea of a common fund, we have serious reservations about a common fund, although we have never said that we are not prepared to discuss

this as one possible method of dealing with the commodities problem. But it is not, in our view, the most practical way.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware of the widespread anxiety which many of us feel, arising from the reports we have had direct from the UNCTAD conference? Is he further aware that we look forward with keen anticipation to his statement but that many of us think that in future the Ministry of Overseas Development should have a rather larger say in British policy and that his Department should have less say?

Mr. Dell: I can assure the hon. Member that the Overseas Development Ministry has a full say in the determination of our policy in this matter. Part of our reservations about the common fund is precisely on grounds of development policy.

Mr. Higgins: Is it not now absolutely apparent that the Government's preparations for UNCTAD IV, and particularly their consultations with their EEC partners, were completely inadequate, and that last-minute panic is no substitute for proper preparation? Is the Secretary of State aware that we now expect him, unlike his predecessor, to give a lead in formulating an EEC position on trade and aid issues?
The Secretary of State has told the House that he will make a statement. Will he also give us an assurance that the House will have an opportunity of debating these matters, as there is widespread concern on both sides of the House about the way in which the Government are dealing with them?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman knows that the question of a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As for developing an EEC position, we had consultations with member countries of the EEC in the run-up to UNCTAD. The truth is that there are different views within the EEC. As regards a common fund, in practice most members of the EEC take the view that we took—that there is reason at this stage for substantial reservations about it. But we are all prepared to discuss it and to see whether there is any way of handling those reservations.

Oral Answers to Questions — Civil Aircraft (Noise Levels)

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he intends to introduce any new measures to encourage the use of quieter civil aircraft or to restrict the use of noisier types.

Mr. Clinton Davis: There is already a requirement that all new subsonic aircraft operating at United Kingdom airports should be quieter than their predecessors. As I stated in the House on 15th March, we are at present studying other measures that would further reduce noise disturbance.

Mr. Tebbit: Is the Minister aware that that will be an extremely disappointing reply to those who live near Gatwick and Heathrow? Is he telling the House and those people that, having dropped the Maplin proposal, the Government have no proposals whatever for hastening the removal from service of noisy aircraft and the bringing into service of quiet aircraft?

Mr. Davis: Not for the first time is the hon. Gentleman wrong. The fact is that the Government are committed to the replacement of the older, noisier aircraft. Steps have already been taken, as from 1st January this year, concerning new production of older types of aircraft.
We have to take into account the economic costs and the adequacy of suitable replacements for the noisier aircraft, and apply a balance in regard to these factors. The hon. Gentleman really is being a little mischievous in this respect, because he is well aware of the difficulties.

Mr. Molloy: While acknowledging the remarkable help, aid and concern of my hon. Friend concerning aircraft noise—with particular reference to the London borough of Ealing, for which I am grateful—may I ask him to consider supplying local authorities, such as the London borough of Ealing, near the great airports with detailed information on what he is trying to achieve, so that they can pass on that information to people in the area who are concerned and who do not fully appreciate his endeavours?

Mr. Davis: I think that the local authorities, and, indeed, other environmental groups, take a rather different view from the narrower political one just ex-

pressed by the hon. Member for Ching-ford (Mr. Tebbit). We are in very close consultation with the local authorities, including my hon. Friend's local authority. I think they accept that we are doing our very best to mitigate the pestilence of noise, about which I have spoken and acted over a period of time.

Dr. Glyn: I thank the Minister for the recent CAA conference which he inaugurated. It did not affect my constituency very much, but that was not his fault.
Will the Minister enlarge on two matters? First, will he look very carefully at and hasten the inquiry into a complete ban on night flying into Heathrow, as this is a subject which is causing considerable trouble? Secondly, will he deal urgently with the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ching-ford (Mr. Tebbit) about noisier aircraft, as people cannot enjoy being in their gardens at weekends and if there are night flights they cannot sleep at night?

Mr. Davis: I readily understand the problems. As I have indicated, I have acted in very close co-operation with environmental groups, with local authorities and with all those concerned with this difficult situation. I have already answered the hon. Gentleman's second question.
As to night jet restrictions—

Dr. Glyn: Night flights.

Mr. Davis: As to night flights—this incorporates night jet restrictions—we have undertaken a study on the scope for tightening these restrictions further. I hope to be able to report to the House on that in the not-too-distant future.

Oral Answers to Questions — Concorde

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress is being made in negotiations on possible additional Concorde routes to Johannesburg and Melbourne.

Mr. Dell: I have nothing to add to the replies that the then Secretary of State gave on 9th February to similar Questions, including one from the lion. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).

Mr. McCrindle: Has not the Secretary of State noticed, during the parliamentary recess, an indication that the Australian


route for Concorde now appears likely to come into service in the near future? Taking that into account, and assuming the ultimate success of the routes to Washington and New York, will he tell me whether the availability of Concorde aircraft will allow the extension to perhaps only one other route, such as Johannesburg or Tokyo?

Mr. Dell: I have indeed noticed the statement of the Australian Minister for Transport during the recess. As the Minister made clear in that statement—it was not, I believe, widely reported—there may be certain statutory processes yet to be gone through, but I hope it will be possible to start a service to Melbourne. As to the availability of the Concorde aircraft for further routes, that is something we shall discuss when it is necessary so to do.

Mr. Terry Walker: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I impress on him that it is very urgent that these routes should now be looked at? Will he tell us what is now happening about India with regard to overflying rights? What consultations are taking place with the Indian Government?

Mr. Dell: As I believe I said on the last occasion when the matter was raised, India is not at the moment willing to have supersonic overflying. There is a possibility of diverting round India, but that would be less satisfactory. This is a problem which, unfortunately, we have not yet resolved.

Mr. Jessel: Why should the Government expect the Indians, who are citizens of the Commonwealth, to allow their people to be overflown by Concorde supersonically when we insist that our own people in Britain may be overflown by Concorde only subsonically?

Mr. Dell: This is obviously a matter that we have to discuss with the Indian Government. They have the final reservation on this issue, just as the British Government would on a similar question if it arose practically in this country.

Mr. Neubert: Will the Secretary of state say what efforts are being made to facilitate a trial operation of Concorde to India to enable the Indian people to decide for themselves the merits of this remarkable aircraft?

Mr. Dell: It is really for the Indian Government to decide what tests they would wish to make before they conceded a supersonic route across India. It is not for the British Government to decide the activities of the Indian Government in that respect.

Mr. Adley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, contrary to the expectations of the anti-Concorde lobby, no one in Washington has lost arms, legs or any other organs since flights started? Will he accept the congratulations of millions of people on the determination of his Department and of many other people in getting this aircraft launched commercially with success?

Mr. Dell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those congratulations. I thought that Concorde was very well received in Washington when we arrived. The route to Dulles Airport was jammed with cars, which seemed to be welcoming us and not protesting.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Secretary of State say whether Her Majesty's Government have now given up negotiating with India and are prepared to let the matter slide entirely and not pursue it?

Mr. Dell: There is a problem here, and we have to consider how we can raise it again and at what time.

Oral Answers to Questions — Development Areas (Tourism)

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has any proposals to amend the development area system, particularly for tourist development projects.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): No, Sir. I believe that the resources available for financial assistance to tourism projects are most usefully deployed in the development areas where the need is greatest.

Mr. MacGregor: Would not the Minister agree that the development area definition, which frequently involves depressed industrial areas, is not really a wholly appropriate measure for a system of tourist grants and for major tourist needs? Will he therefore reconsider the idea of a system of tourist development areas specifically for loans or grants for tourist projects?

Mr. Meacher: The present development areas do, of course, identify the areas of greatest economic need, including a need for tourism, and it is quite wrong to suppose that they are exclusively industrial areas. Many of the development areas include some of the most beautiful parts of the country. We feel that, if we were to extend outside those development areas the limited funds that are available, the benefits which the system gives would be spread too thinly, to the disadvantage of the development areas.

Mr. Costain: Does not the Minister appreciate that the criteria are entirely different? There are many areas on the South Coast which are suffering from high unemployment which could meet this tourist demand. Why does he not take advantage of this and give some benefits so that they can do so?

Mr. Meacher: I hope that they will be able to take advantage of their tourist potential, but with limited Government funds we are bound to concentrate on the areas within the development areas which have tourist potential. All the regional economic planning boards have recently been examining the areas of greatest weakness inside the development areas—the "fragile" areas—and the national tourist boards are now looking at how far they have tourist potential. I am sure that this is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Heffer: Will not my hon. Friend have another look at this? I supported this in the past, but as a Minister I found that there was a justifiable case for certain areas which were not within the development areas. The Government should be a little more flexible in relation to support for areas which are not necessarily in a development area.

Mr. Meacher: I assure my hon. Friend that, although I accept that there are many areas outside the development areas which have important tourist potential, we have to take into account the areas which are in greatest need of economic aid. Those are unquestionably the development areas. If we were to extend tourist aid, on any definition it would have to be extended widely and the benefits would, regretfully, be spread too thinly.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Is not the Minister aware that under the present system

grants go to areas within the development areas which are not particularly interested in tourism? Is he not further aware that there are areas outside the development areas which could do with these grants but cannot apply for them? Would he at least agree to review the present system to see how it is working?

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is referring to guidelines which were recently introduced after full consultations within the industry. I think that we should give them a chance to see how they operate. As to the hon. Gentleman's point that Section 4 grants under the 1969 Act are used inside the development areas in areas which lack tourist potential, I should like to have chapter and verse about this. All such grants are given on the advice and agreement of the national tourist boards, and certainly we should look to their judgment as to the proper expenditure of those funds.

Oral Answers to Questions — Tanker "Urquiola" Disaster

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what further discussions have taken place between his Department, the British Embassy in Madrid and the Spanish authorities concerning the recent disaster involving the tanker "Urquiola" at La Coruña.

Mr. Clinton Davis: On 22nd May the Spanish Embassy in London relayed to the Department a request for the loan of a quantity of dispersant spraying equipment. This and associated equipment was dispatched by air on 24th May. Apart from this one direct contact with the Spanish authorities, the Department has endeavoured to keep in touch with developments in the pollution clearance operation through various channels, including the British Embassy in Madrid and the tanker's insurers.

Mr. Adley: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he investigate the apparent conflict of interest between oil companies, which manufacture dispersants and sell them to clear up their own mess? Will he use his best endeavours to concentrate the resources of his Department on the development and use of skimming devices which cause no pollution?

Mr. Davis: I have no evidence of the conflict of interest to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If he has specific evidence about this, no doubt he will wish to pursue it with me further—although he has written already. In respect of the "Oilmop" device and others of a similar character, these are matters which are being investigated by the Department of Industry's Warren Spring laboratory and also by the fisheries laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Of course, everything which can assist in mitigating this appalling problem will be undertaken.

Oral Answers to Questions — Balance of Trade

Mr. Peter Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what are his latest projections for the balance of trade for the year ending 31st March 1977.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his latest estimate of the balance of trade for the current year.

Mr. Dell: The latest external trade figures show that, under the impetus of renewed export growth, our visible trade balance continued to improve in the first quarter of this year following the marked reduction in the deficit between 1974 and 1975. The prospects for our exports in the coming year are very favourable and provide a strong expectation that the improvement in visible trade will be maintained.

Mr. Morrison: How have the original projections been affected by the fall in the £ sterling? As a result, how much will be added to our import bill?

Mr. Dell: There are two such effects. The first is the well known "J-curve" effect, which increases the values of one's imports. The second effect is that there is likely to be a stimulus for exports. As I said in my answer, we think that over the years the balance between those two effects will be to continue the favourable development of our visible trade position.

Mr. Madden: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the textile industry, for instance, has suffered, and is suffering, a great deal from cheap imports in terms of both volume and price? Can he say

what policy the Government will pursue in the renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Agreement and in other international agreements towards defending the British textile industry to a greater extent than is the case today?

Mr. Dell: We have protected the textile industry by the MFA. I cannot anticipate that the renegotiation of the MFA would give greater protection. What gives an opportunity to the textile industry is the greater competitiveness of this country in exports and, indeed, in import substitution.

Mr. Neubert: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the British aircraft industry is making an outstanding contribution to our export achievement? Does he agree that it would be helpful to its trading position if he were to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to drop the nationalisation Bill?

Mr. Dell: I am sure that the British Aircraft Corporation and the British aircraft manufacturing industry will continue to make a significant contribution under nationalisation as in the past.

Mr. Cryer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in order to maintain and improve the balance of trade we shall have to make use of selective import controls? With the Labour Government believing in a balanced economy, is it not foolish to ignore selective import controls and allow free entry of many goods which are wiping out parts of our industry, particularly manufactured and semi-manufactured goods?

Mr. Dell: The position of the Government in respect of selective import controls was stated clearly by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in his Budget Statement. If anything, the reasons for the position he then instanced have strengthened and not weakened since that time. Regarding the use of selective import controls, we have never ruled this out in particular cases but it would be absurd at this moment, when we have a major opportunity of expanding our exports, to put that possibility at risk.

Mr. Dykes: Will the Secretary of State realise that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Morrison) was characteristically feeble and unsatisfactory? He did not answer the question at all. Will he now say clearly


by what specific mathematical ratio he would expect the terms of trade this year to deteriorate, and by what amount, as a result of the fall in sterling over the past fortnight?

Mr. Dell: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must expect another feeble reply if he expects me to give specific mathematical ratios to calculate the effect of the depreciation of sterling on our balance of trade. Obviously there are a number of uncertainties in this situation, but I think that overall the effect will be beneficial.

Mr. Higgins: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform his hon. Friends that the effect of the massive depreciation of sterling recently has been to give a considerable degree of protection to domestic industry? Will he confirm—will he, indeed, reassert as strongly as possible—that the Government rule out import controls, because on top of the fall in the value of sterling they would undoubtedly create a situation which would be likely to lead to a trade war and "beggar my neighbour" policies—a situation from which Britain would lose more than anyone?

Mr. Dell: It is certainly true that the depreciation of sterling gives greater protection to domestic industry and should make easier both import substitution and the expansion of exports. The Government have always made it clear that we ruled out generalised import controls, but in December we took certain specific steps which we thought were justified in those particular cases. But we have always ruled out generalised import controls.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the statement by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is only partly correct, since in terms of imports of raw materials we shall have to pay substantially more because of the depreciation of sterling? Is he aware that the chemical industry alone will find an extra £300 million on its bill in the next three months?

Mr. Dell: Yes, I have seen a statement by the chemical industry. My hon. Friend will have seen that the Chemical Industry Association, by which it was made, also said that it expected this £300 million increase in imported material

costs to be far more than compensated for by the additional exports.

Oral Answers to Questions — Motor Vehicles

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what were the numbers of complete vehicles imported into and exported from Great Britain in the last eight quarters for which figures are available by Chrysler, Ford and Vauxhall.

Mr. Dell: The information is not available from official sources. Some relevant information is published by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

Mr. Miller: Will the Secretary of State accept that the importation of these vehicles is vital to continued success and the introduction of new models in these companies? Will he therefore resist strongly any suggestion that there should be import controls on motor vehicles from EEC sources?

Mr. Dell: We have no intention of replacing import controls on motor cars from EEC sources. The imports of the three companies to which the hon. Member refers together represent about 4 per cent. of the total United Kingdom motor car market.

Mr. Shersby: Is it a fact that these figures are not available from official sources? If so, will the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that such figures are in future available from official sources rather than from a third party?

Mr. Dell: What the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) was asking for were figures relating to individual companies, which are not contained in official statistics. The SMMT does, however, give figures for individual companies.

Oral Answers to Questions — Company Returns

Mr. Molloy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proportion of companies registered in London have not yet filed their annual returns for 1974–75 as required by the Companies Acts.

Mr. Clinton Davis: 79,000 companies have not yet filed an annual return for the calendar year 1974 and the returns of 245,000 companies are outstanding for 1975. They represent 12 per cent. and


38 per cent. respectively of live companies on the register.

Mr. Molloy: What does my hon. Friend intend to do about this deficit of returns, which is very important? It is a breach of the law. It is important in the current industrial situation in London. If there were a reasonably adequate return, it would assist in assessing in the absolute detail which is now necessary the rundown of trade and industry in the Greater London area.

Mr. Davis: Being a London Member myself, I am as aware as my hon. Friend of the problem affecting London. We have, however, introduced the Companies (No. 2) Bill, which we hope will have a real effect on the speedier filing of annual returns. Also, strong action was taken in 1975. There were 2,440 prosecutions compared with 2,201 the previous year, and 28,000 companies were struck off the register compared with 15,000 the previous year.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does the Minister accept that, while the more speedy filing of these returns might give some useful and valuable financial statistics, the growing unemployment in Greater London will be helped only by positive measures by Government Departments concerned with things like the location of industry and industrial development certificates, on which some of us have been pressing him for a long time?

Mr. Davis: That does not arise from the Question put by my hon. Friend. But this Government have been rather more active than were the hon. Member's Government in seeking the objectives that he has eloquently outlined.

Mr. Frank Allaun: How does my hon. Friend expect the millions of people who pay through pay-as-you-earn every Friday to react to the astounding statement that he has just made?

Mr. Davis: The situation is a serious one, and it is precisely for that reason that the Government have taken the actions to which I have referred. But it is right to say that, among fairly small businesses, there has been in part an ignorance of the law and also the excuse of delegation of responsibility, which of course is an inadequate excuse. There has been a fairly widespread abandonment of mori-

bund companies, but above all there has been delay in the preparation of accounts, which up to the present have been required to be annexed to the annual return. That is a requirement which our new Bill will alter.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pilotage

Mr. Luce: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what representations he has received from interested parties regarding the proposed establishment of a Central Pilotage Board.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Representations have been received from all the main interested parties, nearly all strongly supporting the establishment of a Central Pilotage Board.

Mr. Luce: On what possible basis can the hon. Gentleman justify the setting up of yet another body to proliferate bureaucracy at a time when there are many admirable and well-established bodies, like Trinity House, which can co-ordinate the pilotage service very well?

Mr. Davis: That is the view of a very small minority. In fact, the views which stemmed from the committee which investigated pilotage are supported by the United Kingdom Pilots' Association, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the General Council of British Shipping and the British Ports Association, all of which dissent wholly from the views expressed on this matter by Trinity House. We expect improved efficiency and cost effectiveness as a result of the measures which we should like to see on the statute book as soon as possible.

Mr. Costain: Will the Minister come down to Folkestone and hear the views of the pilot station there, which thoroughly disagree with what he has just said?

Mr. Davis: I should be prepared to do that if the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to meet the United Kingdom Pilots' Association, the TGWU and the other organisations to which I referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — Japan (European Community Exports)

Mr. Arnold: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions he has recently held with his EEC colleagues about facilitating the export of European Community goods and services to Japan; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Dell: My Department takes an active part in EEC discussions on trade with Japan and has contributed to the preparation for the talks which Commismission representatives will be having with the Japanese Government in Tokyo on 10th and 11th June.

Mr. Arnold: Since the retail outlets in Japan are largely controlled by the leading manufacturers and since it is almost impossible to buy into Japanese companies to gain access to the market, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Europe has so far been unable to come to a solution for overcoming what are in effect non-tariff barriers?

Mr. Dell: It is certainly true that Europe as a whole has a very unsatisfactory trade balance with Japan. I think that these are matters upon which we shall be able to improve in the multilateral trade negotiations.

Mr. Hoyle: When will we say to Japan that enough is enough and that she can no longer expect to export to all countries but take imports from none?

Mr. Dell: I do not think that my hon. Friend should exaggerate to that degree. Obviously this is a serious matter and we need seriously to improve the present trade balance between Japan and the European Community and this country. Of course, we have a number of arrangements with Japan which give some protection to industry in this country, and we shall continue them. But I accept that there is a serious problem here.

Oral Answers to Questions — Aircraft Noise (Heathrow)

Mr. Jessel: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what action he is taking to reduce aircraft noise near Heathrow.

Mr. Clinton Davis: We keep noise abatement measures under constant review and every effort is made to secure a progressive reduction in aircraft noise.

Mr. Jessel: Will the hon. Gentleman act with greater urgency in view of the reports today of a higher level of incidence of mental illness in the vicinity of Heathrow? Does he accept that it is intolerable that tens of thousands of people can be disturbed at night so that a few hundred others can get marginally cheaper foreign holidays? Does he accept

that there is a strong feeling in favour of a total ban on all night flights?

Mr. Davis: I will, of course, consider very carefully the reports to which the hon. Gentleman has referred and which appeared in the national Press today. He may accept my undertaking on that. But he knows that the problem of night jet restrictions is formidable. The Government are committed to the progressive reduction of night noise disturbance, and the policy study upon which we have embarked is designed to formulate a long-term strategy for the achievement of that objective.

Mr. Molloy: Will my hon. Friend consider carrying on with the proposition, which he himself inaugurated a few years ago, of consulting from time to time those London boroughs, such as Ealing, that are gravely affected? From those earlier discussions many useful suggestions emerged on which my hon. Friend acted. Will he reinstate such procedures?

Mr. Davis: There is no need for me to reinstitute them, because they are activated constantly. My hon. Friend may rely on the fact that during the policy study to which I have referred the local authorities will be fully consulted.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the change of take-off route over Heathrow, which was the subject of experiment 12 months ago, is not now causing additional nuisance to people living in north-west London in general?

Mr. Davis: No, I am not so satisfied. Again, this is a difficult problem, and if we simply transfer a problem to another area, that is not very satisfactory. There are no easy solutions here, but the Government are looking carefully at, for example, the division of the Mole Valley route, which concerns a number of hon. Members, and consultations about that will be embarked upon in July. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about north-west London, but I am not sure that he has a remedy available any more than I have immediately.

Mr. Buchan: Will my hon. Friend keep in mind that this problem seriously affects not only London boroughs but many other constituencies, including


mine? When he looks at the general strategy for dealing with noisy aircraft, will he also look at other remedies open to him, particularly the provision of more generous grants for the soundproofing of housing in the neighbourhood of airports?

Mr. Davis: In the very recent past, we have substantially increased the noise-insulation grant. I agree that this problem is not confined to Heathrow but affects many airports throughout the country.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a rumour that part of his strategy involves resurrecting the third London airport? Will he confirm that that forms no part of the strategy?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman must not be so alert to rumours. He will be aware that the consultative document relating to airports in the London region has already been issued, and another consultative document dealing with airports in the region will be issued in the next few weeks. There will then follow the most clear consultations with local authorities and other environmental groups throughout the country—including airlines—in order to try to determine a national airports strategy, something which the Conservative Government singularly failed to do.

Mr. Tebbit: Would the hon. Gentleman like now to take advantage of his second chance to answer my earlier question without being either petty or churlish and confirm that the Government have no intention of prohibiting noisier aircraft by law and no proposals to give incentives to operators to introduce quieter aircraft to replace their noisier fleets?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman's original question, which I well understood, was not designed to be particularly helpful. He knows that studies are being undertaken into these matters. It is no help in trying to resolve a difficult problem affecting many thousands of people if he behaves in a rather bad-tempered way.

Oral Answers to Questions — Companies (Export Promotion)

Mr. Dooley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will organise a pilot

survey of medium-size firms to determine the manpower directly employed by them on export sales, promotion and administration, and the increase or decrease in the number of people involved in export work during the past five years.

Mr. Meacher: I am by no means clear that such a study would add very much to existing knowledge. It would be difficult to obtain accurate data on manpower on a historic basis and thus to determine trends.

Mr. Hooley: Does my hon. Friend agree that success in the export market depends very much on the quality and number of persons engaged in promoting and administering exports? Would it not be helpful to try to persuade the CBI to conduct such a study if his Department cannot be bothered to do it?

Mr. Meacher: I agree about the importance of the promotion of exports. It is significant that in the last three-month period for which we have figures exports increased by 4 per cent. and imports by ½per cent., which means that on an annual basis exports are increasing at a rate well into double figures. I do not think that there is direct evidence of export-manning being inadequate. But it is important to inculcate the results of previous surveys in order to get a more professional attitude towards exporting. I am glad to say that the British Overseas Trade Board and similar bodies are trying to introduce this approach by more educational and training conferences, particularly in this export year.

Mr. Higgins: Would not exports be better promoted by cutting down the number of surveys and the amount of form-filling which firms have to do so that they could get on with the job?

Mr. Meacher: The most important thing that firms could do, judging from my own experience of overseas visits, is perhaps to give greater status in the company hierarchy to export managers. The next most important thing that they could do would be to provide better after-sales back-up services and better communication, and to pay more attention to customers' needs—factors which in some firms, although not all that many, are sadly lacking.

Oral Answers to Questions — Communications Equipment (Export)

Mr. Newton: asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his policy towards the export of communications equipment under the Export of Goods (Control) Order.

Mr. Dell: Applications for licences to export communications equipment which is subject to control are considered in the light of the Government's policies in relation to particular destinations.

Mr. Newton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is now very great concern in my constituency and in the Chelmsford constituency about the question mark hanging over a Marconi contract with South Africa? Is he further aware that many trade unionists are anxious about the many hundreds of jobs which may be at stake? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that those jobs will be given due weight in the balance and agree that, in present circumstances, that weight ought to be very heavy indeed?

Mr. Dell: No doubt in any application for an export licence all relevant considerations will be displayed as seen by whoever applies for it. It is not the custom of the Department to discuss particular applications for export licences.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this contract was to be with the Defence Department of South Africa, which means that it had military significance, and that its purpose was for use in Namibia, just as the Americans used the system in Vietnam?

Mr. Dell: I am not able to confirm all my hon. Friend's statements, but, in any case, if an application is to be made it is better that it should be considered in the light of what the trade says.

Mr. Dykes: Is the right hon. Gentleman keeping a close eye on the development of the draft EEC directive on public purchasing contracts because of its importance for this sector and its possible relation to export-control orders of a different kind?

Mr. Dell: I will look at that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — Merchant Shipping Legislation

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what proposals he has

to bring forward a new Merchant Shipping Bill.

Mr. Prescott: asked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will introduce new merchant shipping legislation in the next parliamentary Session to include repeal of disciplinary sections of the present Merchant Shipping Acts, pilot legislation and safety provision.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I propose to introduce new merchant shipping legislation dealing primarily with stafety standards, pilotage, discipline, the limitation of damages payable to seafarers and the carriage of passengers as soon as a place can be found in the parliamentary timetable.

Mr. Gould: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing impatience in the industry, particularly among the trade unions, to see this legislation brought forward? Will he therefore perhaps give consideration to even a short Bill for next Session to deal with the most pressing of these issues?

Mr. Davis: I think that my hon. Friend, who was associated as a Parliamentary Private Secretary until recently with the Department of Trade, knows that the impatience of the whole industry, shipowners and trade unionists alike, is fully shared by me. There is a very strong case for a Merchant Shipping Bill in the very near future, but I do not know whether it will be necessary to have a truncated version.

Mr. Adley: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the danger of the breaking of the current animal quarantine regulations by animals brought into this country by merchant ships? Will he give an assurance that this aspect will be taken into consideration by his Department when the new legislation is being framed?

Mr. Davis: I am not sure that that question would fall within the ambit of a Merchant Shipping Bill. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to alert me to some specific evidence, no doubt he will write to me.

Mr. Prescott: Is my hon. Friend aware that our seafarers will not continue any longer to operate under archaic disciplinary conditions and safety legislation which is carried by recommendation and not


regulation? Will he consider in the proposed legislation closing the loopholes which have allowed wages not to be guaranteed to seamen in some cases, as in Maritime Fruit Carriers, and will he bear in mind what has happened in the North Sea oil industry with the exploitation of cheap foreign labour by United Towing Company and others, about which I have written to him?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend, who has a considerable knowledge of these matters—I pay him a tribute for all the help he has given to me and to my right hon. Friends in the matter of shaping the new legislation—will be aware that the points affecting discipline and safety are very much in the forefront of my mind, and the disciplinary matters were the subject of a unanimous report on the part of the whole industry. I am looking at the other matters to which he referred, as he well knows.

Oral Answers to Questions — Trade Balance (European Community Countries)

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what has been the visible trade balance of the United Kingdom with the other members of the EEC in 1976 up to the latest date for which figures are available.

Mr. Dell: In the first quarter of 1976 there was a visible trade deficit with the EEC of £392 million, seasonally adjusted on a balance of payments basis.

Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend think that our trade with the other members of the European Community this year has been of help in strengthening the £ sterling?

Mr. Dell: I am glad to say that what is of use to the value of the £ sterling is that our trade with the EEC, as with other destinations of our exports, has been improving. There is, for example, the figure I gave my right hon. Friend earlier which was £163 million less than for the fourth quarter of 1975. Further, the three months to April show an accrued deficit with the EEC which again is down as compared with the preceding three months. I am sure that these are all points that my right hon. Friend will welcome.

Mr. Marten: Will not the new arrangements for monetary compensatory

amounts make quite a difference to the trade figures?

Mr. Dell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the arrangements about monetary compensatory amounts are at the moment assisting with the cost of living in Britain.

Mr. Skinner: In order to make a valid comparison, and to establish clearly the absence of any seasonal fluctuation, will my right hon. Friend give the figures for the comparable quarter as distinct from the quarter he referred to, which was the one immediately preceding?

Mr. Dell: The figure I gave was seasonally adjusted.

Oral Answers to Questions — Textile Imports (Anti-Dumping Applications)

Mr. Shersby: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what progress is being made by his Department in dealing with anti-dumping applications in respect of imported textiles from the Far East and elsewhere.

Mr. Meacher: We have currently five applications in respect of imported textiles. An anti-dumping duty on ladies' rubberised raincoats from Hong Kong was imposed on 21st May. Investigation of polyester fibre from Romania is well advanced and an announcement will be made shortly. Other cases concern men's suits from Eastern Europe and PVC coated fabrics from Hungary. In both of these, investigations are in hand but further information is awaited from the industries concerned. The fifth application relates to Austrian rayon yarn. My Department is in touch with the industry on this.

Mr. Shersby: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although the House will be glad to know that these applications are in hand, very considerable concern is still being expressed both inside the House and outside about the time that is taken to deal with these applications? Will he say why, for example, it took 11 months and cost £100,000 to deal with the dumping of ladies' raincoats from Hong Kong, and what steps is he taking to speed up the process?

Mr. Meacher: In all of these cases we can take action only if the necessary information is provided by the industry.


Although many industries provide information accurately, many do not and extremely detailed information is required to be obtained by the Department. Where, however, there is a danger of damage in the meantime whilst an investigation proceeds, provisional charges to duty can be and are imposed.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the legislation about dumping is very slack? Does he not think that it would help if much tighter legislation were introduced so that there were not all these delays and direct help could be given much more rapidly to industries such as the textile industry, which has been suffering badly from cheap dumped imports?

Mr. Meacher: Where accurate information is provided, early action is taken and in a number of cases anti-dumping action is taken within a few months. Where there is damage in the meantime, provisional charges to duty can be imposed. If my hon. Friend has suggestions about improving the legislation, I hope that he will let me have them.

Mr. Hoyle: Might it not be better to follow the example of countries such as Japan and put the onus in relation to dumping on the importer so that, until he could prove that he was not dumping, his goods would be held up at the docks?

Mr. Meacher: I have already discussed this matter with my hon. Friend and have asked him for specific information about how that scheme operates, because we in the Department do not have any hard information that this is so.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The Minister said that he relies on the trade to provide the information. Does he not recollect that his right hon. Friend said only a few weeks ago that in future the Government would not adopt a neutral attitude but would themselves provide the information as well as the trade providing it?

Mr. Meacher: In practice, the information is gathered to a large degree by the Department in co-operation with the industry. Because some industries are inexperienced, the Department is highly influential. It is very difficult to obtain

information about ex-factory prices in some countries, but advantage is taken of information supplied by posts overseas.

Oral Answers to Questions — Lonrho

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade when the inquiry into the affairs of the Lonrho Company was started; when the report was completed; and when it will be published.

Mr. Dell: The inspectors were appointed on 19th June 1973 and they submitted their report on 1st March 1976. At present the report is being considered and no decision has yet been taken about publication.

Mr. Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House frankly what is going on? Is it true that there has been pressure from other Ministries that the report should not be published? Is it not rather unfair to the Lonrho Company, after all the allegations that have been made against it, that it seems that attempts are being made not to have the report published?

Mr. Dell: What is going on is that I am considering the report and whether it should be published—nothing else.

Mr. Lipton: How much longer will my right hon. Friend consider the report? Is it being held up because a certain Member of another place got a £130,000 tax-free golden handshake?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend will see if he examines the record that this is not taking an unusually long time to decide. As he would expect, the report is a detailed examination, and I am considering it.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is in fact taking a very long time to decide? Is he aware that the general belief is that this is a very interesting report and refers to quite a number of people in various parts of the world, and that we should all like to see it?

Mr. Dell: I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's interest.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Did I hear my right hon. Friend correctly? In answer to an earlier supplementary question, did he say that he was considering whether


the report should be published? Surely it must be published.

Mr. Dell: No. It is a matter of discretion, and I am considering that question.

Mr. Burden: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out that any so-called golden handshake above £5,000 is taxed at the full rate?

Mr. Dell: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance now that he will publish as much as possible of the report—indeed, all of it if possible but, if not, as much of it as he can—and explain to the House why he is not publishing the rest of the report?

Mr. Dell: I regret that I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. We shall have to consider the report and make a decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — Livestock and Agricultural Produce (Export)

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to promote exports of British livestock and agricultural produce.

Mr. Meacher: We seek to encourage British livestock and agricultural exporters to make full use of the Government's export services; and the 1976 programme for this sector includes support for 82 participants in eight specialised agricultural fairs overseas and 69 members of nine outward missions.

Mr. Hardy: Even so, given the historic and considerable regard for British livestock, and given the skill of our farmers and the higher retail prices of processed food products on the Continent, could not even more be done, or does my hon. Friend think that there are still serious, if non-legislative, barriers to discourage aid?

Mr. Meacher: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made clear on 25th May, the recommendations of the Strutt Report on this matter are still being considered. Last year the level of exports of livestock and agricultural products more than doubled over the year before.

£ STERLING

Sir G. Howe (by Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government propose to take in the light of the decline in the value of the £ sterling; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): In the first half of May sterling was fairly steady at a little over $1·80 until a firming of United States interest rates caused the dollar to improve and, in common with most other currencies, sterling fell back a little—to around $1·78. Towards the end of the month there was a slight further fall in a thin market. Last week saw more sustained selling pressure which forced sterling down to $1·71 on Wednesday, and on Thursday the rate fluctuated between $1·70 and $1·73. As the House knows the pound was more stable on Friday with a two-way market beginning to emerge. The rate was up on the day and closed at $1·717. Today the rate improved again, opening at $1·721 and reaching $1·7246 by 3 o'clock.
There is no economic justification for the fall which has taken place in recent weeks. It goes beyond anything required to make good past differences in rates of inflation. This has been recognised by Finance Ministers and central bankers abroad and increasingly, I believe, by the public at home. Those who have sold sterling have done so in disregard of the basic facts of our economic position.
The economy is developing broadly on the lines I foresaw at the time of the Budget. There are now clear signs of an upturn in industrial production and a slowing down in the growth of unemployment. The rate of recovery in GDP since the third quarter of last year may have been slightly above the annual rate of 4 per cent. foreseen in the Budget forecasts.
The balance of payments on current account has been stronger than we expected. In the three months to April the deficit averaged only £52 million a month, compared with £140 million a month for 1975 as a whole. Export volumes in the last few months have grown a good deal faster than the 10 per cent. annual rate I foresaw at the time


of the Budget. Total import volumes have grown relatively little despite substantial imports of industrial raw materials and semi-manufactures.
North Sea oil is likely to cut our net imports of fuel by some £1 billion this year and this saving will grow steadily in the years ahead.
In the first half of 1975 prices were rising at well over 30 per cent. per annum. We have already more than halved that rate. The new pay limit agreed between Ministers and the TUC received greater support in the TUC General Council than the £6 limit. I am confident that the same will be true in the Special Congress, and that the new limit will be as successfully implemented during the next pay round as the £6 limit this year. This means we can look forward to a further halving of the rate of inflation in 1977 and to lower wage settlements than in any other industrial country.
This is not a situation in which any responsible British Government could allow themselves to be pushed into hasty and ill-considered changes of policy on public expenditure. Our spending plans were set out in the White Paper on Public Expenditure published in February. There is no economic case for changing the plans for the current year, but we are determined to ensure that the planned total of expenditure is not exceeded. The system of cash limits, and the improved financial information system for Government expenditure will play an important part in this, as will the new arrangements for monitoring the expenditure of local authorities. These have given us early warning that their estimates for the current year exceed the White Paper programmes. But, in agreement with the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance, we have made it clear that they must bring these estimates within the White Paper figures.
New arrangements have been introduced for monitoring claims on the contingency reserve, which of course is included in the White Paper totals for each year. The contingency reserve for 1976–77 was set in January at a level which is £875 million at current prices. By the end of April over £400 million of this had been committed. We shall not allow the contingency reserve to be

exceeded. This means that further claims will have to be met within the balance outstanding or by offsetting reductions.
We are now reviewing expenditure programmes for future years in the normal way through the public expenditure survey and work on this is well advanced. I have already made it clear that we shall adjust these programmes in good time as required to meet the prior claims of exports and investment in the light of the expected pace of recovery.
I said in my Budget Speech that, while allowing for the financial needs of industry, I shall not permit the growth of the money supply once again to stimulate inflation. We have been conspicuously successful in controlling the money supply, in marked contrast with our predecessors. I am ready to take further action in the fiscal field as well as the monetary one, if that should prove necessary.
In the monetary field the Governor asked the banks last December to ensure that the needs of manufacturing industry for finance or facilities are fully met and that any expansion of their business is directed to manufacturing industry for the expansion of exports, import saving, industrial investment and working capital. The Governor intends to ensure that this guidance continues to be strictly adhered to.
But the most important objective now is to continue financing a large part of the borrowing requirement by sales of gilts outside the banking system. To this end the Treasury are today announcing the issue of £800 million of a new long-dated stock—13¼ per cent. Exchequer Stock 1996 which yields over 14 per cent. to redemption.
These are our policies. No one who compares our situation today with what it was a year ago can doubt that they have contributed to a massive strengthening of our economy.
Recent pressures in the exchange markets carried sterling to a level which cannot be justified. This is not the view only of the British Government. It is the view which has been expressed this afternoon by the Central Banks of the leading trading nations with whose agreement the Governor of the Bank of


England has just issued the following statement:
Financial authorities from the Group of Ten Countries and Switzerland, together with the Bank for International Settlements, noting that the recent fall in the value of sterling under exchange market pressure had led to disorderly market conditions which carried sterling to an unjustified level, today agreed, in the common interest of the stability and efficient functioning of the international monetary system, to make available to the Bank of England a standby credit in excess of $5 billion.
This is a short-term facility made up of $2 billion from the US authorities and of $3·3 billion from Central Banks in other Group of Ten Countries and Switzerland and from the Bank for international Settlements. My hope and expectation is that any drawing on these funds will be only temporary. But if any drawing on them could not otherwise be paid on the due date, Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to seek further drawing from the International Monetary Fund.
I hope the whole House will welcome this as an impressive demonstration of international banking co-operation in support of sterling against unjustified market pressure.

Sir G. Howe: The whole House will be grateful to the Chancellor for his long and important statement, but it will be deeply concerned that the only significant announcements that he has made will involve substantial additions to the Government's borrowing requirements both at home and overseas.
Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the reason for our troubles in the past two weeks, and indeed the past two years, is not so much lack of confidence in purely economic factors as a total lack of confidence in the political management of our economy under this Government? Does not the experience of the past two weeks make it perfectly plain that, although restraint on pay bargaining is vital, public financial rectitude, for which we still look in vain, is even more important?
The Chancellor referred to the Government's public expenditure White Paper published earlier in the year. Does he not realise the extent to which opinion inside and outside this country continues to be disturbed by the fact that

a large part of his party failed to support that White Paper and continues to behave as though it did not exist?
When will the Chancellor announce clear monetary targets? Above all, when will public spending and borrowing be cut instead of increased?
Are the Government prevented from taking these decisions, which are essential in the nation's interests, by some kind of secret agreement with the TUC? What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by his repeated willingness to take action in the fiscal field? Is he prepared if necessary to offset the fiscal part of that bargain?
Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the country is crying out for a Government who will take the necessary difficult decisions, and take decisions not at the behest of a small part of his own party but in the interests of the nation as a whole?

Mr. Healey: I am sorry that once again the right hon. and learned Gentleman has allowed party passion to override the patriotism which we expect to characterise the Opposition Front Bench. The sour and sullen reception he has given to this massive international endorsement of sterling is in line with the sour and sullen reception he gave to the pay agreement the other day. It makes a very shabby contrast with the views expressed by the banking community in Britain and the world about the state of sterling at the present time. If the views the right hon. and learned Gentleman expressed were shared by the international banking community, it would never have made the statement which I have read out, nor would it have offered a standby credit of this nature to the United Kingdom. I think that the House and the country will form a proper judgment of the patriotism and common sense of the Conservative Party in the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the Chancellor accept that all who are not totally overcome by party political passion will welcome his determination not to indulge in panic and immediate cuts of public expenditure? Does he recognise that such cuts would be totally phoney and could not be implemented by any Government?


However, will the right hon. Gentleman turn his attention to his remark that there is no economic justification for the present level of sterling, the natural conclusion from which must be that there is a political justification, that the world is looking at our ability to govern ourselves, and that a simple change of Government would do nothing to change the world's opinion of that?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for expressing the views of the British people on this matter. As for his comments about political and economic justification, as has been made clear by many leading British merchant bankers, such as Mr. Mackworth Young of Morgan Grenfell, and all the central bankers whose views I have quoted, recent market movements and pressures on sterling have not been justified by economic facts. That is often the case. The hon. Gentleman may recall that in March last year, when our inflation appeared to be out of control, sterling went up against the dollar. It is not the case that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Shadow Chancellor appears to believe, the market is always tight in these matters. It was not right then, and it is not right now. It is the duty of central bankers and monetary authorities to intervene when the market gets it wrong, to try to set it back on the right path. I hope that when they do so they will on one occasion have support from the party whose leaders are on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Horam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is particularly strong support on this side of the House for the calm way in which he has handled the situation over the past few days? Has he seen the comment of Dr. Emminger, the West German central banker, that this country now has the best opportunity he has seen for 20 years? Does not that underscore the unreality of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), the Tory official spokesman?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will also have noticed what Dr. Emminger said about the paramount importance to this country's prospects of the recent pay agreement with the TUC. It makes an interesting contrast with the views expressed by the right hon. And

learned Gentleman the other day, that the pay agreement was
an onslaught on the British people's standard of living and freedom generated and forced down their throats by ageing, doctrinaire, prejudiced, Socialist trade union leaders.
This is a good opportunity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to apologise for that remark, particularly at a time when Mr. Len Murray is in hospital as a result of his efforts to help the nation's economy.

Sir John Hall: What effect does the Chancellor think the fall in sterling over recent weeks, coupled with the expected rise in commodity prices during the next nine months, is likely to have on the cost of living index? What effect does he think that will have on the Government's timetable for reducing the rate of inflation? Is it not true that at the end of the next 12 months we shall still have inflation running at a rate at least twice that of our industrial competitors?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. Perhaps I may answer the last point first. I expect inflation to be halved again by the end of 1977. No doubt the hon. Gentleman, who I know studies these matters, will have seen that this is the view of most European central bankers—indeed, all who have commented on the pay policy. On the question of the precise effect of the recent depreciation, broadly speaking, a 4 per cent. fall in the value of sterling adds 1 per cent. to the retail price index within a year, and the bulk of that addition comes through within about six months. For that reason, as I said on the radio the other day, the achievement of an inflation rate of less than 10 per cent. is likely to come rather later than this coming winter unless—[Interruption.] I believe that some Opposition Members have some interest in the future of the British economy. As I say, that is likely to happen unless, as a result of the recent initiative of the Group of Ten Central Banks, we recover some of the recent depreciation, which I believe will be the case.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend recall that it is now nearly four years since the Conservative Government allowed the pound to float downwards on a temporary basis, and that the reason we on this side of the House at that time opposed the free float of the pound was


that it would keep domestic lending rates unnecessarily high? Will he now reconsider the situation, in view of our massive unemployment, to get away from a high domestic lending rate, which is now deflationary instead of having the necessary reflationary effects? Will my right hon. Friend even consider introducing a two-tier lending rate in order that we may ensure that industry gets the capital investment that it now needs?

Mr. Healey: With respect to my hon. Friend, I think he has linked together several points which do not necessarily hang together.
On the question of the floating rate, my belief is that the last Conservative Government were right to allow the pound to float and that we are right to allow it to continue to float. Any attempt unilaterally to establish a fixed parity for the pound would be extraordinarily expensive in foreign exchange and would require a very much more rapid return to fiscal balance than I believe my hon. Friend would be prepared to tolerate. If it were not to do so, it would require even higher interest rates than those about which my hon. Friend is complaining. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Shadow Chancellor would have done his cause more good if he had referred to the fact which is pointed out in several letters to the Daily Telegraph today, and which is supported by his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), that the insensate increase in the money supply in 1972 and 1973 has been the major cause of inflation in Britain over the last two years.

Mr. Hordern: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that countries overseas see very little reason why they should finance a public sector deficit which we are not prepared to finance ourselves, and that until we are prepared to take steps to reduce public expenditure and reduce the increase in the money supply, which is twice the level which obtains in the United States, there will be no return to confidence in the pound?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman possibly prepared that supplementary before he heard my statement. The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is totally contradicted by the announcement I made this afternoon about the actual

views of the foreign Central Banks in all the major industrial countries in the world. If the hon. Gentleman compares our record on money supply with that of the Government whom he once supported, he will know how immensely superior has been our control of this element in the economy compared with that of the Conservative Party.

Mr. Dalyell: May I congratulate the Chancellor on his package and offer him a helpful suggestion for his public expenditure survey? In the light of UCATT's decision on devolution at Scarborough over the weekend, is it not now time to consider whether expensive paraphernalia such as Assemblies in Edinburgh and Cardiff should be postponed?

Mr. Healey: I do not think that is the case. May I say, with the greatest friendship to my hon. Friend, that I think that anybody who has ever had responsibility for trying to manage the British economy will know that it is not possible to separate economic and monetary components from the political components. I believe, like all my hon. Friends in the present Cabinet, that the Government's policies on devolution are essential if the United Kingdom is to be kept together, and I believe that that is the view of the majority of people in the country.

Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there are no immediate plans for drawing on the $5,000 million credit?

Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, who had rather a rough time in the Daily Telegraph this morning for his perfectly accurate remarks about the distasteful business of banking, has asked a question which he knows no Chancellor would ever answer. A very large number of people at this time would dearly like to know how I propose to use this money. I am not going to tell them, so that they may carry the consequences of the actions which they have recently taken against sterling.

Mr. Ashton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was a member of a Committee of this House which recently visited the world bankers of Washington, Wall Street, Frankfurt and Amsterdam, that we spoke to the world's bankers at the highest level and that all of them were absolutely certain that the pound was


very much under-valued and that the crisis was temporary? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that all of them were quick to point out that the rate of wage inflation in America next year was expected to be 8 to 10 per cent., and in Amsterdam and Frankfurt it was expected to be 6 to 7 per cent., both of which represent a higher rate of wage inflation than ours?

Mr. Healey: Yes, I am aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If hon. Members opposite would like to continue their economic education, I should be prepared to give a list of statements by foreign bankers to this effect.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Chancellor aware that since he announced his deal with the unions, which is virtually in the bag, the pound has moved down by 15 cents against the dollar? Has he not yet drawn the conclusion that that is not the problem and that the problem is the excessive and profligate expenditure of the Government?

Mr. Healey: I think the simple answer to the rather threadbare rhetoric of the hon. Gentleman is "No, Sir."

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that statements in the Financial Times Industrial Forecast Survey and Model International support him absolutely in the statement which he made today about the erroneous devaluation of the pound? Is he further aware that the improvement in our situation has been achieved not so much by politicians as by the hard work of ordinary British people who have sacrificed so much? The real contribution from the Shadow Chancellor this afternoon has been to confirm what British trade union leaders say, that a real disaster to Great Britain would be a return of a Conservative Government.

Mr. Healey: I thank my hon. Friend, and I agree with everything he said.

Mr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman laid great stress on the billion pounds to be expected from North Sea oil. Further to the question of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), will the right hon. Gentleman concede that Scottish resources are largely underpinning the United Kingdom economy?

Mr. Healey: My feeling is that that is not the view of the inhabitants of the Shetland Islands.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me why the clever and wealthy foreign bankers, who take the view that sterling is greatly undervalued, are not buying pounds instead of lending us more money? Is the right hon. Gentleman not rather ashamed that the only positive proposals in his package create more loans and debts for this country which will have a severe effect on the living standards of our children and grandchildren?

Mr. Healey: No debt is involved. I expect over the period as a whole that there will be no net spending from this facility.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend expect that there may well be a need to curb speculation? Does he agree that he has powers to do this under the Exchange Control Act 1947? A Labour Government cannot be subject to the whims of faceless speculators in sterling. Would my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude of the Opposition is well epitomised by a remark of a former Governor of the Bank of England in 1956 when he said, "Although this is anti-British and derogatory to sterling, it makes sense to me"? Is not that the watchword now of the Opposition?

Mr. Healey: I agree with the spirit of what my hon. Friend said, but, if I may correct him, the person who said that it was derogatory to sterling but made good sense to him was, in fact, a member of the Court of the Bank of England and a leading international commercial genius, perhaps I could call him—the late Mr. Keswick.
On the question of speculation, the exchange control operates in such a way that resident holders of sterling are not able to speculate against sterling. If we look at the sources of the recent pressure, we find that about a quarter came from non-resident holders of sterling and that about another quarter came from leads and lags—and the volume of commercial transactions is so great that a change of one day in the date of payment in a massive transaction can lead to a loss of $275 million of the reserves. That is another major factor. The third factor


was leads and lags and covering forward commitments by tour operators on invisibles. Another factor of perhaps 15 per cent. was represented by the current account deficit. Speculation, in the sense in which my hon. Friend put his point, in my view played only a minor part in recent events.

Mr. John Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the major anxiety in the international market centres on borrowing requirements? The problem, as the right hon. Gentleman must realise, is that when, as must be expected, industry picks up in its demand for finance, the competition between this immense borrowing requirement and industrial needs will provoke problems. What steps will he take to meet that serious future situation?

Mr. Healey: Of course I am aware that this is a problem, and I referred in my statement to the fact that we shall have to review next year's spending programmes in the light of the demands of exports and investment in terms of the expected pace of recovery when we come to undertake this exercise. I accept that this is a problem, but I do not think that there is a simple rule-of-thumb answer.
The right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East asked whether we could fix a target rate for any increase in money supply, as has happened in the United States. I should like to quote what was said by Chairman Burns to a Congressional Committee the other day, when speaking of the difficulty of even defining what is happening to money supply:
Let me go to the month of February. We published an increase of 6·5 per cent. It might have been, using a different seasonal correction, zero and might have been 10·6 per cent.
I ask Opposition Members—who, like me, are concerned about the monetary element in our affairs—to recognise that there is no simple rule-of-thumb answer to this problem.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Notwithstanding the sometimes fortuitous and incomprehensible advantages which can accrue to this country, is it not time the Government considered the position of sterling as a reserve currency because of the difficulties into which this country falls, and does not the present situation lead to a dis-

advantageous position for the United Kingdom?

Mr. Healey: I assure my hon. Friend that all relevant factors are under continual consideration by the present Government.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Since the right hon. Gentleman will doubtless wish to exonerate the major trading companies of this country from any charge of speculation, let alone lack of patriotism, what advice will he give them in regard to covering forward exchange requirements?

Mr. Healey: They would be wise to reflect on the importance of my announcement this afternoon. I have no doubt that they will come to a different conclusion in regard to the future course of sterling from that which was produced out of a hat by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East—who is still, I believe, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Skinner: Does the Chancellor appreciate that his argument about leads and lags would have sense if the pound had fluctuated up and down, but the fact is that it has all been one way—downwards? Is not the real truth of the matter that the speculators who have assisted in flooring the pound are by and large the self-same people to whom we are now going cap-in-hand to borrow money, with the high interest rates and strings that are attached?

Mr. Healey: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not believe that demonology is a very good guide to economic management. What is certain is that, whoever contributed to the recent pressures on the pound, it was not the Central Banks, which are now contributing the standby facility to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dykes: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's "no panic" exhortation last week, no doubt confidently expecting that sterling will go up again, if the reverse situation applies, either in the short term or later, will he consider the pros and cons of the idea of having a two-tier market for sterling, one financial and the other commercial?

Mr. Healey: I have considered this matter carefully over the past two years, but I have come to the conclusion, as


have previous Governments, that in the circumstances of the British economy it would be difficulty to operate such a system without leakages, which would rob us of all its advantages.

Mr. Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend enlarge further on the position of sterling balances and say in detail which countries have been selling sterling balances and whether there has been pressure from a certain African country? Will he further consider the question of funding those balances?

Mr. Healey: As I said earlier, I consider all questions relating to the reserve rôle of sterling, and I shall make up my mind in the light of the consideration I am able to give. I can assure my hon. Friend that major depositors have not been the source of pressure in recent months.

Mr. Tapsell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I, for one, for whatever it may be worth, share his view that on any objective analysis sterling at present is considerably undervalued? I have a little commercial experience in these matters. Is he also prepared to accept that unfortunately this market is no longer purely objective but has been overtaken by emotional factors? Will he accept from me that it will not be sufficient for him today just to announce these large and valuable supports from the Central Banks unless that announcement is rapidly followed by other measures?

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the reasonable way in which he put his supplementary question. It has been universally recognised by those close to the markets, particularly last week, that markets were influenced more by emotional factors than by rational considerations. That view was widely expressed by some leading private bankers in the City of London. I believe that this demonstration of support for sterling by the world's Central Banks will restore a more rational balance to the calculations of the market. I agree that there are areas of policy which will require most careful consideration in the coming months, and I indicated in my statement what they were.

Mr. Hoyle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time to consider an

alternative economic strategy—namely, the introduction of import deposits?

Mr. Healey: I cannot agree, and I do not believe that import deposits would make any contribution to our underlying problems. I believe that our short-term problems have been enormously alleviated by the announcement I have made this afternoon.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has given objective consideration to all the ramifications of the present situation by saying what estimates he has of the extent by which sterling would improve if there were immediate cuts in public expenditure?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir.

Mr. Lee: Is it not a fact that every time the Government undertake a major borrowing engagement it has a retrograde effect in terms of domestic policy? What strings are attached to the borrowing? Is it not time that overseas assets were bidded into the reserves, as some of us have recommended for a long time?

Mr. Healey: I do not believe that the acquisition by the Government of portfolio assets would assist us in this situation. As to the other point raised by my hon. Friend, there are no strings to this money at all.

Mr. Michael Morris: As local government is reported to be overspent by up to £500 million in just two months, what practical action does the Chancellor propose to take to restrict the expenditure of those authorities which are overspending?

Mr. Healey: Local government is not overspending. It was overspending in 1973 by 9 per cent., compared with the limits set by the Conservative Government at the time. But we now have an early warning system, which is enabling us to discover two months after the beginning of the financial year that estimates prepared for current expenditure by local authorities may exceed the limits which they have agreed to observe by about 4 per cent. The Association of Municipal Authorities, in the Consultative Council set up by the Government, has already agreed to seek to bring these estimates back into line. If local authorities fail to take such action, they will be


aware of the consequences on future programmes and of the potential consequences in regard to relations between local and central Government while the Layfield Report is being considered.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall allow two more questions. There is a lot of other business ahead of us.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Am I right in assuming that the issue of new Government stock will have a deflationary effect on the economy? If so, can my right hon. Friend say by how much he would expect employment to decrease?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir. My hon. Friend is wrong. The effect of the issue of the new stock is to enable us to finance a substantial borrowing requirement this year without printing money outside the banking system. Those who wish us to maintain the current level of public expenditure, more than anybody else, have an interest in seeing that we are able to do this.

Mr. Marten: Can the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question put my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), namely, if sterling is so under-valued in the view of these bankers, why are they not buying it? Secondly, if it is under-valued, as he says, what in his view is the correct value of sterling?

Mr. Healey: I apologise for laughing, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's innocence was, I guess, a little disingenuous. To deal with his first question, we shall have to see how the bankers do react—[Laughter.] Before hon. Gentlemen burst into sniggers may I advise them to wait and see what happens in the next few days. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about the right rate for sterling, if I were to give any indication of that I should be making life very much easier for those very people who have got us into the present difficulty. I do not intend to do so.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Neave (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ire-land whether he will make a statement

about the violence in Belfast during the weekend when 10 people were reported killed.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): In the 72 hours ending at 8 a.m. today 10 people were killed in acts of violence in Northern Ireland and 85 people were injured, a number seriously. All but one of the victims were civilians. The incidents occurred primarily in Belfast and took the form of a series of retaliatory attacks on individuals and public houses mounted by small groups in both communities. There were in all nine bomb attacks and 28 shooting incidents.
The security forces have responded by concentrating on intensive checking and patrolling, especially in Belfast. A full-scale operation has been in progress, involving strong forces of troops and police. The necessary forces are available for this actvity, which is planned and implemented through close co-operation and co-ordination at all levels of the Army and the RUC. I want to make it clear again that the Army force level in Northern Ireland is the same as at the end of last year, and no reduction is contemplated.
The police will continue, with increasing resources, to seek out those responsible and bring them before the courts. Already over 500 people have been charged with serious offences this year.

Mr. Neave: While I condemn this sickening and cowardly violence and those responsible and those who fermented it in some cases, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can still hold out no hope to the suffering people of Northern Ireland of more effective security measures after his ministerial Committee has been sitting for more than five and a half months? Is he also aware that there is another step open to him to restore morale, namely, to stop his reckless, dangerous and misguided dealings with the political spokesmen of the IRA?

Mr. Rees: I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the ministerial Committee is not meant to come up with some magic formula for dealing with the violence. It must look at long-term needs concerning the size of the forces and the weapons they require. If there were a


magic panacea it would have been used by successive Governments in the past five years. There is no such panacea to solve the problem of violence in Northern Ireland. As for talks, all over Northern Ireland the security forces meet people in clubs and so on. I am not engaged in talks with anyone. I am engaged, quite correctly, in testing the views in the community of Northern Ireland. This is of great value to the security forces, and has been so in recent weeks.
Since I left Northern Ireland at 1 o'clock today I have heard that 20 people are assisting the police with their inquiries into the weekend's violence, two people have been charged, and police inquiries are continuing. Further arrests may follow.
On Saturday night and Sunday I was more than ever impressed by the work of the Army and the police, and the cooperation at all levels in Belfast. They behaved extraordinarily well. If they had not been there the retaliatory killing, from pub to pub, by small groups of people, would have led to far greater casualties than those I have reported today.

Mr. Neave: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered my second question? I was not talking about talks in clubs. I was talking about his official dealings with the Provisional Sinn Fein.

Mr. Rees: I have made it clear time and again to the hon. Gentleman that in the course of the past year it was valuable to have such talks. They have not been nearly so great as the Press has made out. I reserve the right to hold such talks if they are necessary in the future. In the penumbra of Northern Ireland, where large numbers of people are Republicans, it is valuable for me to do so, but I am not in business to negotiate with murderers on either side. I give full support to the security forces, who have done extraordinarily well.

Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the face of events such as these, any action, however well-intention and however understandable, by private persons or groups of persons can contribute nothing to security, and can only endanger it? Does the Secretary of State accept that my hon. Friends and myself wholly and

exclusively support the security forces of the Crown, which alone in the long run can prove to all concerned that there will be no practical result from actions such as took place over the weekend?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said about supporting the security forces. Given the wide penumbra in Northern Ireland of people who call themselves Loyalists, I agree with him. There are, perhaps, those who do not understand that there are many brands of Loyalists and many brands of Republicans in Northern Ireland. With regard to private armies, the right hon. Gentleman is correct. I can only regret that the words of a few people are sometimes dressed up so that when it is said by the media that groups are out searching and using road blocks, in the end there are more members of the Press out than anyone else.

Mr. Corbett: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the answer to this senseless sectarian round of slaughter in Northern Ireland lies not in this House but among the people of that Province? Will he make it clear that he would welcome an initiative by the parties represented in this House, by the Churches and the trade unions, irrespective of political divisions, in the form of an appeal to the people of Northern Ireland to back my right hon. Friend's attempt to re-establish the rule of law?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he has said is quite true. I was in Northern Ireland over the weekend, and for me one of the astonishing things was that this ghastly thing can happen in one small part of Belfast while in the rest of Belfast it is not known about. The people there watch it on television, the same as everyone else. There is a fungus abroad in Northern Ireland. What is required is for the political leaders to tackle it and not to respond as some have with quick and simple answers, believing that we can go back to the past to solve the problems of Northern Ireland. There is no going back. It is to the future that we must look. No one knows in what form the solution will be, but it will come about only when the two communities in Northern Ireland can work together.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as we


move from one bloodstained weekend to another there must be a sense of hopelessness about the security situation? Can he say how successful the A Squad, set up by the RUC, has been? Are there adequate police? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered reinforcing the security forces in Northern Ireland to allow more police to join that sort of squad which was set up with the specific intention of trying to sort out sectarian violence?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the way the hon. Gentleman put that. There are sufficient troops in Northern Ireland. From time to time there may be a need to use Spearhead for a particular problem, but in general there is no shortage of soldiers. If one dealt with the situation in terms of numbers of soldiers the result would be a never-ending spiral. We need the Army in Northern Ireland, as was witnessed by the events at the weekend, but in the long term it will be the police who have to tackle the situation—and I do not just mean the A Squad. There are other changes which the Police Commissioner is making in relation to regional crime squads, and so on. That sort of thing is taking place all the time. Developments have been taking place in the course of the last month.
I am involved in seeing the reports now because of my responsibility under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The quality of information provided by the police is geared to getting people before the courts, and this is incomparably better than the situation when I detained 400 people on my fiat alone.
But this whole thing is a slow job. We have ignored Northern Ireland for 50 years. Therefore, one cannot expect to find the solution in only seven years. It is a long-term problem, and the best thing is for us to tell the Provisional IRA that it will not win. All this killing and murder which leads to a response by the Protestant para-militaries is caused by the Provisional IRA, and as a result more Catholics than Protestants have died in recent weeks.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: One of the most puzzling things to many of us is the fact that there are increasing reports that these vicious crimes are perpetrated by people who hijack motor cars. Is

there nothing that can be done to make it more difficult for people to steal motorcars? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Regulations which came into force in January are strong enough? Could he find some greater deterrent by providing greater penalties for people who leave their cars out to be hijacked?

Mr. Rees: The law has been strengthened, but cars are still hijacked in all parts of the Province, particularly in certain parts of Belfast. For this reason the road blocks are set up. The hon. Member must remember that very often these are not cases of true hijacking. People do know that their cars are being used for these purposes. When people inform the police that their cars have been stolen and they co-operate, the matter can be dealt with. But this is the only way of dealing with it. We are dealing here with a part of the United Kingdom which is basically sorely divided. There are many people who genuinely have a gut feeling about Loyal-ism or Republicanism, who do not get involved with killing or murdering, but who nevertheless feel that they have to give some support, out of fear.

Mr. Urwin: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the desperate search for peace in Northern Ireland, a large number of people and a large number of organisations are applying themselves in whatever way they can to help achieve a solution? What measure of success has been achieved by the efforts of the Northern Ireland TUC which initiated the "Better Life for All" campaign in the Province?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the efforts being made by various organisations. With regard to the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions I commend their pamphlets and their meetings and the growing strength they have achieved with trades councils in some industrial areas. What they need is the support of all their members, and that is what they are trying to get.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Business Statement.
I believe that for the convenience of the House generally there should be a short postponement before proceeding with the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, although I also wish to make it clear that it is the firm intention of the Government to obtain the Bill this Session.
As a result, the business for tomorrow, Wednesday and Thursday has been rearranged as follows:

TUESDAY 8TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Education Bill.

WEDNESDAY 9TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Industry (Amendment) Bill.

Motion on the BBC Licence and Charter.

THURSDAY 10TH JUNE—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: debate on the Royal Air Force, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Motion on EEC Documents R/2085/ 75 and R /263 /76 on education.

Mrs. Thatcher: As the Leader of the House has announced changes, why has he not made arrangements for an economic debate this week, before the TUC meeting next week? We learned in a speech by the Prime Minister, made outside the House, that the Government have already begun to think in terms of a new social contract. Is the House never to have an opportunity in Government time of discussing the economic position, on a proper White Paper? Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman has postponed the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, is he planning any major changes in it? If not, for whose convenience is it being postponed?

Mr. Foot: As I said in my statement, I think that a postponement will be for the convenience of the House generally. If the right hon. Lady and her colleagues wish to see the Bill before the House soon, I assure her that she will not have to wait long, and she will no doubt have been grateful for the assurance that I gave that we are determined that the Bill should reach the statute book this Session.
The right hon. Lady mentioned, as she has on previous occasions, the subject of a White Paper. Certainly we believe that a White Paper must be published on the pay situation generally, and obviously this will be for discussion in the House.

However, we are not proposing to have a economic debate this week. If the Opposition wanted one, they could have one on Thursday, or even Wednesday. There has been talk of a motion of censure, although I think that that has been abandoned now.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Leader of the House realise that the Government's resolve looks about as firm as a pink jelly on a hot summer afternoon? Why is there this cowardly capitulation to the clutch of wet hens on the other side of the House? Is it not time that the Government governed?

Mr. Foot: I am as eager as my hon. Friend is to see progress with the Bill, but had we proceeded with it tomorrow, as planned, I do not think that we would have made much progress. I want to see the Bill on the statute book, and I am sure that my hon. Friend does, too.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in the difficult situation in which we are placed, with the sudden change of business? During the recess my colleagues and I were working on amendments to the Education Bill. We tabled 150 of them this morning. They were tabled for Thursday, as that was when the Bill was to have been discussed. As this business has been transferred to tomorrow, they will now appear as starred amendments. In these unusual circumstances, may I ask your indulgence to consider these starred amendments for selection along with others?

Mr. Speaker: The business has been changed, and no opportunity was given for these amendments to be put down unstarred, since the debate was expected on Thursday. Of course I shall bear this in mind.

Mr. Beith: Is the Leader of the House suggesting that it is advantageous to postpone the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill until after 24th June, or does he realise that there is still not a clear majority in the House or the country for this measure? Will he consider withdrawing it, along with the Dock Work Regulation Bill, and getting on with things that really matter?

Mr. Foot: We have no intention of withdrawing either the Aircraft and


Shipbuilding Industries Bill or the Dock Work Regulation Bill.

Mr. Kinnock: Is it not the case that the advantage of a pause before further consideration of the Bill will be that it will give extra time to some hon. Gentlemen from Northern Ireland, Scotland. Wales, and even Devon, to contemplate the realities in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries, and come to terms with the fact that many thousands of jobs are hanging on this Bill?

Mr. Foot: It is also the fact that many who wish to see the Bill on the statute book will have communicated with Opposition Members to that effect.

Mr. Tebbit: How does the Lord President equate his statement that he wants to delay consideration of the Bill for the convenience of the House with his own mindless mouthings and those of many of his hon. Friends, in the week before Whitsun, that through taking a reasonable time in Committee the Opposition were delaying the Bill and endangering jobs? He cannot have it both ways. When was he telling an untruth?

Mr. Foot: We shall get the Bill on to the statute book under the proposals that I have made to the House in accordance with the procedures of the House and by a faithful observance of your rulings, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Marten: Shall we have a statement tomorrow by a Foreign Office Minister about the meeting of the Common Market Council of Ministers that took place during the recess?

Mr. Foot: I doubt whether there will be a statement tomorrow, but I shall look at the possibilities.

Mr. Burden: As employment in the shipbuilding industry will depend on the number of ships built in British yards, how many ships do the Government intend to order if they get the Bill through?

Mr. Foot: All those matters will be open for discussion when we proceed with the Bill. I am glad to have so many requests from the Opposition side that we should proceed with it speedily.

Mr. Adley: Was not the description by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr.

Kinnock) of jobs hanging on this Bill a very reliable description of job security under nationalisation?

ICELAND (FISHERIES DISPUTE)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on the settlement of the fisheries dispute which I reached with the Icelandic Foreign Minister in Oslo last week. Copies of the agreement are available in the Vote Office.
Since my predecessor, now Prime Minister, last made a statement to the House on this dispute on 4th February, much has changed. The Law of the Sea Conference has met again and, while no final agreement was reached, the trend towards 200-mile limits is now clearly irreversible. Thirteen countries have already declared such limits. Canada, the United States, Norway, and other countries have publicly announced their intention to extend to 200 miles, and Britain is inviting the EEC to do the same at an early date.
It was against this background, of an inexorable world-wide move towards 200-mile limits, a move from which Britain and the EEC cannot long remain exempt, that the Government had to decide whether once more to seek an agreement with Iceland—an agreement that would inevitably be on the lines of the one that I concluded last week.
What were the alternatives? There was in fact only one. That was to continue to pursue the cod war, with the certainty of dangerous escalation, with international and especially NATO opinion moving sharply against us, at a mounting cost in terms of naval protection, with our moral position steadily eroding as nation after nation accepted the principle of 200 miles, until, after only a few months, Britain and the EEC ourselves accepted 200 miles. At that moment any claim on waters off Iceland would disappear; meanwhile, we should have lost good will on a massive scale, and our bargaining position with the Community over the common fisheries policy would have been seriously complicated.
No informed observer has argued for this option, and that includes many of those trawler owners and others who have


been so vociferous in their public condemnation of this agreement.
It has been clear for some time to all Thinking people, even if not to the more backward sections of the trawling industry, that in a world of 200-mile limits the industry must face a major adaptation. The content of the catch will change dramatically. The distant water fleet will decline, the inshore and near-water fleets will expand. The painful changes which now face the Humber ports and Fleetwood, of which I am only too conscious, for obvious reasons, and of which I warned my constituents before going to Oslo, would have had to occur anyway, whether I had signed this agreement or not. I can assure the House that the Government are deeply conscious of the financial and employment aspects of these changes.
I should like to express my thanks to Mr. Knut Frydenlund, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, for his invaluable help in making possible the contacts which led to this agreement, and also to the NATO Secretary General for his efforts in the same direction. I should like above all to express the appreciation of the House to all those who took part in the dangerous operation of protecting our trawler-men, and especially to the trawler-men themselves for their courage, restraint and understanding during the dispute.
Mr. Speaker, recriminations about the past will do no good to anyone. They will not save a single job on Humberside or in Fleetwood. This agreement has been as passionately denounced in Reykjavik as it has on Humberside. I regard it as a concession only to common sense. There is no point in yearning for the unattainable.
We must now concentrate on the future. This is the first step in a long process of adaptation which the British fishing industry, like other fishing industries, will have to face in this new world of 200-mile limits. The next steps will be an urgent study by the Government of what help they can give towards the restructuring of the industry, the revision of the common fisheries policy, and a decision by the EEC on its own 200-mile limits. The British Government will now at once pursue the necessary consultations, both with the industries at home and with our partners abroad.
I am certain that with help from the Government and the EEC, while relying also on its own resilience and initiative, the British fishing industry will emerge from these changes a different but still a vital and prosperous industry.

Mr. Pym: We have heard what is a very grave statement for the fishing industry. It admitted that Government policy over the last year and more has been informed by a disregard of what the Foreign Secretary himself described as the "inexorable move" to the 200-mile limit. I do not think that anything has changed much in the last few months. If the Government never were going to go through with their policy, why did they embark upon it in the first place?
I should like on behalf of my right hon. Friends and the House to endorse what the Foreign Secretary said about our appreciation of what the Navy did and of what the trawlermen stood up to in the recent confrontation.
This temporary agreement is markedly worse than would have been attainable earlier. Was not 65,000 tons proposed for the catch, and will this package not mean less than half that amount? The repercussions of the agreement will be dramatic for our whole fishing industry. Having led the industry into this cul-de-sac the Government are now shown to have prepared no plans to help the thousands who will lose their jobs or the trawler owners.
Do the Government realise the implications and dangers that now exist for our inshore fleet? How is the large investment in our trawlers and in all the people whose jobs depend on them now to be used? It seems extraordinary that the Government should have arrived at this agreement with no contingency plans having been prepared.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there would be an urgent study by the Government. That should have been carried out already. We on the Conservative Benches have been pressing for a full year the urgent and vital necessity of revising the common fisheries policy in the wholly new circumstances of 200-mile limits. The Minister of Agriculture admitted a year ago that it was urgent to revise the common fisheries policy, and that has not yet happened.
I regret that the statement does nothing to end the uncertainty about the future that inevitably exists in the industry. Does the Secretary of State accept the necessity not to yield anything on the 50-mile limit which his Minister proposed to the EEC a few weeks ago during the renegotiation of the CFP?

Mr. Crosland: The Minister of Agriculture will make a complete statement shortly on the general implications of this agreement and other changes for the industry. On the question of the tactics and strategy in the dispute, which the right hon. Gentleman has just fundamentally criticised, I took the precaution this morning of reading in Hansard all the exchanges which have occurred after every ministerial statement on this subject in the past 12 months, and I found that not once did the Opposition Front Bench challenge the policy that we were pursuing. On the more general point, I do not accept any criticism on fisheries policy from a party that signed the Treaty of Accession without saying one word about the CFP.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger, dismay and disgust felt by Humberside people, particularly the City Council of Hull and the fishing families, who feel they have been badly let down? Will he confirm that Hull, Fleetwood and his own port could each lose 20 vessels, and that 500 men on deck and double or treble that number on shore could be put on the dole? Are we not now the only country in Europe which will allow an alien Power to board our vessels on the international high seas? Will my right hon. Friend amplify what he said about giving money for the structure of the industry as a whole and say what steps he is taking, first, to alter the CFP and, secondly, and even more important, to get the EEC quickly to extend limits to 200 miles?

Mr. Crosland: I have listened to my hon. Friend on radio and television in the last few days repeatedly using very strong language—which I have intensely disliked—about this agreement. I sit for a fishing port and I know precisely the likely consequences of the agreement in Hull and Grimsby. They will not be of the severity that my hon. Friend has

described. I had to ask myself, both as a Minister and as someone sitting for a fishing constituency, whether there was an alternative course that would be better for Hull and Grimsby. After what my hon. Friend can imagine was the most anxious thought, I came firmly to the conclusion that this agreement would best serve the interests of our constituents.

Mr. Powell: In the world of 200-mile limits which the Secretary of State mentioned, does he recognise that for this country, within the EEC, there will be no 200-mile limit? Is it not the case that the near-impossible position in which the Secretary of State found himself is fundamentally due to the intolerable deal dealt to him and this country by the terms on which we initially entered and the terms on which we confirmed our membership of the Community?

Mr. Crosland: I go a very long distance with the right hon. Gentleman in what he has said. There is no doubt that the top priority now, whatever the history of this matter—and I do not dissent from much of what the right hon. Gentleman said—is to revise the CFP and salvage everything we can from the grievous error made by the Conservative Party in 1972.

Mr. Prescott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us have predicted this outcome for some time, but that we believe he has got the best possible deal out of the mess he inherited? Will he make clear that the hysterical claims that 9,000 men will be unemployed are not true, and are geared to compensation requirements rather than job effect? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any aid given to the industry is geared to the provision of jobs and towards maximising the number of trawlers in the short period to September, rather than the minimum of the 24/48 trawler formula envisaged by the industry? If aid is given by the Government, will my right hon. Friend call a conference of all concerned —local authorities as well as the industry—to see how the aid can be used during the fundamental change which will occur in areas like Humberside, which have higher unemployment than most development areas in this country?

Mr. Crosland: I note what my hon. Friend says. It is true that he has been completely consistent on this matter over


the past 12 months. The trawler owners have given figures of 60 trawlers being laid up and 9,000 jobs being lost, but I can find no foundation in fact for supposing that the number will be on that scale of magnitude.

Mr. David Steel: I do not wish to join in the denunciation of this agreement, but will the Secretary of State, as a member of the Cabinet, explain why it agreed to embark on the policy of the cod war if it was not prepared to see it through? Is he aware that all the so-called changes in his statement have been wholly predictable all along?

Mr. Crosland: It has never been true in human history that a country which embarks on a war expects to see it continued indefinitely.

Mr. Thompson: Ought not this concession to common sense and morality to have been made months ago and ought not the Government to have been preparing for it months ago? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government will take as tough a line in the negotiations with the Common Market over the CFP as they have hitherto taken with Iceland?

Mr. Crosland: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, I can give him the confirmation he seeks. On his first point, a great number of changes have occurred since the initial decision.

Mr. McNamara: Is not the truth of the situation that the Government have not had a policy for fishing since they have been in power? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I do not need any "Hear, hears" from the Opposition. They never had a policy when they negotiated the whole blinking thing anyway. Have not Ministers paid little attention to warnings from hon. Members from Humberside and elsewhere about the need for a policy for the restructuring of the industry, no matter what the outcome of the Icelandic adventure, and is it not true that that nothing has been done? Is the criticism to be levelled at the Government not the climb-down over Iceland but the complete failure to deal with the employment problem on Humberside and the restructuring of the industry, which has been urged from the Government Back Benches for the past two years?

Mr. Crosland: A great deal of work has been done on the future of the indus-

try in the light of the many new circumstances now in operation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture hopes to make a statement shortly on the wider question.

Mr. Rippon: Will not the right hon. Gentleman withdraw his remarks about the Treaty of Accession not making provision for the renegotiation of the CFP? Did not the whole agreement turn on the fact that there would have to be both an international conference and a review by the Community, and was this not specifically provided for? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that in the so-called renegotiations the Government of which he was a member did not challenge the agreement on fisheries policy?

Mr. Crosland: I have checked these facts. The last statement on fisheries in the Treaty of Accession discussions conducted by the Conservative Government was in December 1971. That Government were in power until 1974 and therefore had more than two years in which to do something about it. As far as our renegotiation is concerned, it was made clear at a very early stage and has been made clear all through that one of the top priorities, to which the Government attach great importance, is the revision of the CFP.

Mr. Brotherton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great anger in my constituency and his over this settlement? Does he realise that my constituents and his who are concerned in the deep-water trawling industry, including the trawlermen, the skippers and the owners, will greatly resent his remark about the backward sections of the industry? The right hon. Gentleman has said that unemployment figures such as 9,000 are greatly exaggerated, but will he tell the House how many people he thinks will be put out of work because of this settlement, especially at the Findus factory, where many hundreds of his constituents and mine work?
Will the right hon. Gentleman justify to the House the waste of time and money involved in the Royal Navy embarking on the cod war, which the Government did not have the will to see through to the end? [Interruption.] Those with the loud voices on the Government Benches do not realise that


we supported the then Foreign Secretary in his policy towards the Icelandic cod war because we thought that the Government would see it through to an honourable end.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman having betrayed his constituents, will he now do the honourable thing and resign?

Mr. Crosland: As regards unemployment at Findus and other food-processing factories, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have seen statements in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph three days ago from Findus. Birds Eye, Ross and all the other processing factories that they expect no unemployment in their factories as a result of the agreement.
The hon. Gentleman has said that some of my remarks will be resented. I may say that I strongly resent many of the remarks that the hon. Gentleman has been making. I do not doubt for a moment that they will occasion plaudits, and may even win votes in his constituency, but occasionally it is the duty of a Member to tell his constituents the truth, however brutal that may be.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If there are short questions I hope that I shall be able to call all those who have been seeking to catch my eye throughout this time. I then want to move on to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the method employed in resolving the Icelandic dispute—namely, the licensing of the number of entitled trawlers that may operate on any one day—might be applied to resolving the difficulties within the common fisheries policy when the 200-mile limit is extended to the EEC? Does he agree that that would have far more effect than an option of 50, 100 and 200 miles, which would be quite impossible for member States?

Mr. Crosland: I agree. I think that this is the only satisfactory method of monitoring these matters. We have found consistently in the past that quotas were unsatisfactory. I strongly accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Dalyell: I ask a rather parochial question from the East Coast of Scotland,

where there seems to be a general acceptance that the Foreign Secretary has done the best that could be done in the circumstances. What will he say to owners and others who say "For heaven's sake, something has now to be done to protect our inshore waters, and particularly against Russian trawlers"?

Mr. Crosland: I should say that that will be a major part of the revision of the common fisheries policy. As soon as the EEC, with British support—indeed, under British urging—declares a 200-mile limit, the question of access to the 200 miles by non-EEC countries will become a matter of major importance. The matter of the Russian trawlers which my hon. Friend has mentioned will become an urgent matter.

Mr. Clegg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the bitterness in the port of Fleetwood matches that in Humberside? Does he accept that one of the factors in this situation is that those who have broken international law and others who have jumped the gun in international law have again won the victory, and that this is a sad day? Is he aware that the problems of the fishing industry can be solved if his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will do something quickly in the short term and make it clear to the Common Market that the British fishing industry is a major British political matter and not a second-rate industry? Will his right hon. Friend make it clear that we are tired of being treated as Cinderellas?

Mr. Crosland: I very strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's concluding remarks. I have made it clear in no uncertain terms to my Common Market colleagues that I share his view of the importance of the British fishing industry. I am strongly aware of the position in Fleetwood, which is basically in a much more difficult position than Grimsby or Hull in terms of the dependence of the town on the one industry. That will be very much in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he comes to make his statement on the future of the industry.

Mr. Buchan: I add my welcome and congratulations to my right, hon. Friend on taking what was a difficult and, in


some ways, courageous decision. Does he agree that it means that three matters are now paramount? First, does he agree that there is a new situation as regards renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, and that that should be used for the toughest possible posture in relation to limits? Secondly, does he realise that the real priority in terms of money is not compensation but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, the men whose livelihoods are now lost as a result of the agreement? Thirdly, does my right hon. Friend accept that as a matter of urgency money must now be spent on developing on a commercial basis experimental fishing in deep waters off the West Coast of Britain?

Mr. Crosland: I agree completely with my hon. Friend's first two points. In considering in detail the financial help that may be available, I ask the House to wait until my right hon. Friend has made a fuller statement.

Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further in what he said about the Royal Navy? Is he aware that this has been not merely a question of courage and devotion to duty, which we always expect and get from the Royal Navy, but an example of one of the most skilful pieces of seamanship that this wonderful force could ever show? Will he send a message from the House to Vice-Admiral Sir Anthony Troup expressing our tremendous admiration for what the Royal Navy has done?

Mr. Crosland: I absolutely accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am obliged to him for his suggestion. I think that every word he said will be echoed by everyone who has had fairly close acquaintance with the difficulties which the Royal Navy ships have been facing.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Despite the distress that the agreement will have caused, is my right hon. Friend aware that it will be welcomed in many ports as an escape from the untenable moral position in which this country found itself and will be supported by every strand of opinion throughout the country with scarcely a dissenting voice?
I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) about the dangers of overfishing inshore waters. I ask my right hon.

Friends to take steps to ensure that over-fishing by British trawlers is avoided as well as overfishing by foreign trawlers, so that we do not create a situation in which we find ourselves in Iceland's position of having our fish stocks exhausted.

Mr. Crosland: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am obliged for his opening remarks. When my right hon. Friend comes to make a statement about the future of the industry, the whole issue of overfishing and conservation, which is critical to the future of all fishing industries, not only to the British fishing industry, will play a prominent part.

Mr. Jessel: Why have the Government throughout the whole of this dispute appeared to be almost entirely concerned with the industries, whether British or Icelandic, which are producers and which have organised themselves but, as far as I can recall, had nothing to say about the interests of the great majority of our fellow citizens—namely, the consumers of fish who provide the fishermen with their livelihoods? What will be the effect of the agreement on the price of fish, on the quantity available and on quality?

Mr. Crosland: There will certainly be an increase in the price of cod in particular as a result of the agreement, just as there was an increase in the price of cod when the Conservative Government finished the last cod war with a settlement that was not regarded as satisfactory by the industry. Earlier it was asked "If you start a cod war, why don't you finish it?" However, the Conservative Government did not finish the cod war during their period of office.
Yes, there will be some effect on the price of cod in particular, but it is not the view of the fish processors that the effect will be very marked. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) will probably have noticed that one of the large processors in my constituency has said that the effect will be less than the effect of the devaluation which has occurred in the past six months.

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I apologise that I was somewhat delayed on my way to the House, thereby missing the statement of the Foreign Secretary, but I have read the agreement. Bearing in mind that the agreement is only for six months, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake


to commence discussions with the Icelandic authorities well before the expiration of this period, so that there could be agreement on the new agreement well before the end of six months and so that we do not get ourselves into a position of having yet another cod war at the end of six months?

Mr. Crosland: Another cod war at the end of six months is the last thing that I should have thought anyone would want, on either side of the House. As regards starting the negotiations quickly, the negotiations will be undertaken by the EEC, as the agreement makes plain, and we have made it clear to the EEC that there is a great need for hurry in this matter to avoid an awkward gap at the end of the six-month period.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL (STANDING ORDERS)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop—to raise a point of order.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which arises from the Resolution which the House passed by one vote on the night of Thursday 27th May. You, Mr. Speaker, suspended the Sitting of the House that night thereafter, for grave disorder, and on the next day requested hon. Members not to raise any further points of order at that Sitting. This is, therefore, the first opportunity to raise with you the following matter, following the precedent that a point of order should be raised at the first opportunity that presents itself after the occurrence of the event which precipitates it. Though I have given you notice in broad terms of the point which I wish to raise with you, work on the final form of this submission has continued, even during Question Time today, and prevented me, therefore, from submitting it to you in advance in transcript form.
The motion passed by the House on the night of Thursday 27th May referred specifically to the effects of further delay and uncertainty in relation to proceedings on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill as a reason for dispensing with certain unspecified Standing Orders. In that context I must respectfully submit that no such considerations can

properly carry any weight with you, for the following reasons.
The decision to attempt to bring into public ownership three different industries in one Bill was a decision taken by the Government, not by Mr. Speaker and the Officers of the House and not by me. The decision so to draft the Bill that the contents were scrambled, thereby preventing Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of a Committee of the House from ordering that the Bill be divided, necessarily meant that if any one part of the Bill encountered difficulties during its passage through the House, the whole Bill would be delayed in consequence. But that was a decision taken by the Government; not by Mr. Speaker and the Officers of this House and not by me.
The decision to exclude from Part I of Schedule 2 of the Bill Marathon Shipbuilding Company (United Kingdom) Ltd. was a decision taken by the Government; not by Mr. Speaker and the Officers of the House and not by me. The decision, once Mr. Speaker had ruled that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill was a hybrid Bill prima facie, to prevent the Bill from being then sent to a Select Committee and petitions lodged against it to the Examiners and thence to a Select Committee to follow the procedure laid down for hybrid Bills, was a decision taken by the Government; not by Mr. Speaker and the Officers of the House and not by me.
In suffering the natural consequences of their own decisions, the Government do not thereby generate the right to escape those consequences which result from their own incompetence, and not from any shortcomings of Parliament itself.
I now make to you, Mr. Speaker, the following formal submission.
First, on 14th February 1949 the Journal of the House shows, on page 112 in the right-hand column, that the House resolved
That the recommendations contained in the Report from the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) in Session 1947–48 be approved, subject to the qualification that a Bill against which no petition has been lodged may be committed either to a Committee of the Whole House, of to a Standing Committee as the House may determine.
Second, this Resolution of the House is still in force.
Third, in so far as the Resolution of the House recorded in the Official Report for


27th May 1976, columns 765–66, dispensed or purported to dispense with anything, it dispensed with certain Standing Orders relating to Private Business, and did not dispense with, suspend, modify or otherwise nullify the Resolution set out in item one.
Fourth, the recommendations of the Select Committee which were accepted by the House in item one include the following propositions, in page ix, paragraph 19 (a):
Since a hybrid Bill by definition affects particular interests in a manner different from all other interests in the same category, an opportunity must be provided for those interests which have been singled out to state fully their case for amending the Bill in order to secure their protection or compensation. This seems to your Committee to be the purpose of committing a Bill to a Select Committee.
Sub-paragraph (b) states,
This confirms your Committee in the view that the peculiar function of a Select Committee on a hybrid Bill is to hear those affected parties who petition and to reduce as far as possible the hardship and inconvenience which would be inflicted on them if the Bill passed into law.
Fifth, petitions against the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill have been deposited, and the qualification contained in the latter part of the Resolution of the House, recited in item one, does not therefore apply to proceedings henceforth on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
Sixth, notwithstanding the Resolution aforementioned in item three, the Resolution cited in item one entails the House ordering that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill be referred to the Examiners and a Select Committee appointed to hear petitions in due form against the Bill and seeking redress.
Seventh, should the House, notwithstanding its obligation pursuant to the Resolution cited in item one, fail to order that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill be sent to the Examiners and a Select Committee be appointed to examine the petitions and report to the House what amendments should be made to the Bill, or other redress that it deems suitable granted or afforded, then the petitioners have a right to petition at the Bar of the House, to present their case by counsel at the Bar of the House, and to call witnesses to testify and answer

to questions put to them at the Bar of the House.
Eighth, this right of audience at the Bar of the House to petitioners against, inter alia, a hybrid Bill, being petitioners of good locus standi, still exists. It is founded in what is known as lex et consuetudo Parliamenti, which is analogous to the common law. It can be extinguished, altered or dispensed with by Act of Parliament; but it cannot be so extinguished, altered or dispensed with by the Resolution of either House of Parliament. As another example, the inability of the House of Commons to fine those whom it finds guilty of a contempt of the House cannot be swept away by a Resolution, though it could by an Act of Parliament.
Ninth, the existence of this right to petition at the Bar of the House was recognised by the Select Committee on Hybrid Bills (Procedure in Committee) aforementioned when it reported to the House, at page xi, paragraphs 26 and 27, in the following terms:
Your Committee's recommendation that, in the absence of any instruction or indications from the House to the contrary, the onus of proving the expediency of the bill should be considered to have been removed from the promoters, makes necessary an alteration of the present order of proceedings in the select committee. As the purpose of the select committee is to hear the case of the petitioners for amending the bill to secure their protection and compensation, your Committee believe that this case should be stated at the outset. The agent or counsel for the petitioner should open, calling witnesses who would be examined, cross-examined and re-examined. The agent or counsel for the promoters would then reply to the case made out by the petitioners, and their witnesses would be examined in the same manner. If the promoters called witnesses or put in documentary evidence (but not otherwise), the petitioner would be entitled to a right of reply. This method of proceeding, which would be a return to the older practice when petitioners were heard against bills at the bar of the House, seems to Your Committee to possess two decisive advantages.
Tenth, it has been the unvarying practice of the House to set a date by which petitioners should present their petitions against a hybrid Bill, after reasonable notice.
Eleventh, it is Mr. Speaker who himself questions witnesses at the Bar of the House, and through him hon. Members of this House themselves put questions to witnesses or petitioners at the Bar of the House—see "Erskine May", 17th


edition, page 700. For those who can afford £25—that does not include me—it is page 691.
I ask you to state at your convenience, Mr. Speaker, when petitioners should present themselves with their counsel and witnesses at the Bar of the House, so that the House can hear them and their witnesses, and the proceedings properly pursuant thereto, before the House proceeds further to consider the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, against which the said petitioners desire their petition to be heard.
Twelfth, alternatively, Mr. Speaker, I request that you should make known, on behalf of the House, to the petitioners against the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill by what date their petitions should be presented to the House by an hon. Member, or otherwise, so that the said petitions may proceed to the Examiners, and thence to a Select Committee, whose report would be received by the House before it gave further consideration to the Bill.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, at 11.40 this morning I accompanied the Parliamentary Agent acting for C. H. Bailey Limited and Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited, to the Private Bill Office. There the petition of C. H. Bailey Limited and Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited was handed to the Clerk on duty, who expressed himself as a little uncertain as to the position.
As I was entering the House before Question Time, Mr. Speaker, with the intention of giving you a copy of the submission I wished to make several hours later—now, in fact—I was given a letter marked "Urgent, by hand" by the said Parliamentary Agent, Mr. J. A. Durkin, of Lewin, Gregory and Co. The letter reads:
Dear Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop, After you left the Private Bill Office this morning the Clerk expressed considerable doubt about the competence of his office to receive the Petition. It was arranged that the Petition would be left with him and that he would confer with his colleagues.
I have just heard that the Private Bill Office consider that, in the absence of an order from the House, they are not competent to receive Petitions and they base that view upon a passage in 'Erskine May', (19th edition), at Page 556.
The Petition has not, therefore, been deposited, but the Public Bill Office were at

pains to point out that they were not ruling that such Petitions could not be deposited in the House, but only that the Private Bill Office was not competent to receive them. I tried to telephone to discuss the point with you but I was unable to contact you. I hope, however, that this letter reaches you in good time.
It did just that.
My final submission is that, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 14th February 1949—that Resolution being still binding on the House, Mr. Speaker—it constitutes a valid instruction to the Private Bill Office to receive petitions, and the House would in fact be contravening that Resolution, which it has not suspended, if the Leader of the House does not place on the Order Paper a motion sending the Bill to the examiners, appointing a Select Committee, and also declaring a date by which petitions must be submitted to the Private Bill Office.
I believe that the last such order tabled by the Leader of the House was in respect of the Channel Tunnel Bill, when 40 days' notice was given from laying the order before the House—which passed it—until petitions had to be received. The shortest time I have been able to find in my researches is seven days; therefore clearly a reasonable period of time lies within that bracket.
I referred to the Resolution of the House of 14th February 1949, when, incidentally, the names of the then hon. Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), for Sunderland (Mr. Willey), and for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) appear in the Division List, together with the name of Mr. F. Beswick, who is now Lord Beswick and who is hoping to be chairman of one of the bodies set up under the Act.
If violence is done to that still extant Resolution of the House, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you to direct that the petitioners may present themselves at the Bar of the House to exercise their right, so that we may, as a House of Commons, comply with our duty to them?

Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) for the care that he has taken in presenting his point of order. It would be an understatement to say that I require time to consider it, and therefore I hope to give my judgment on the matter tomorrow.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question put, That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. John Ellis.]

Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees).

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question put, That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.— [Mr. John Ellis.]

Not less than 20 Members having risen in their places and signified their objection thereto, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Noes had it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees).

Orders of the Day — POLICE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 2

REFERENCE TO BOARD OF COMPLAINT REPORTS

5.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 6, leave out from police) to 'he' in line 7.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 6, after 'police)', insert:
'or a preliminary report that the complaint was trivial or vexatious and not worth pursuing by investigation'.

Government Amendment No. 10.

Government Amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
'(3) Where by virtue of subsection (2)(a) above, subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to a complaint, the chief officer of police shall, after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings (including any appeal to the Secretary of State), send to the Board—
(a) a copy of the complaint and of the report of the investigation under the said section 49; and
(b) particulars of the disciplinary charges preferred and of any punishment imposed.
(4) Where in the case of any complaint the documents mentioned in subsection (1) above are not sent to the Board before the expiration of such period as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 5 below (whether because the investigation has not been completed or for any other reason) the chief officer of police shall send to the Board—
(a) as soon as possible after the expiration of that period, a copy of the complaint; and
(b) when he sends that copy and, in accordance with any provision made by the regulations, from time to time thereafter information as to the stage reached in dealing with the complaint;
but the obligations imposed by this subsection shall apply only if and so long as the case is one to which subsection (1) above applies or could apply and where a copy of the complaint is sent to the Board under this subsection no further copy need be sent under that subsection.


(5) References in this section to a copy of the complaint shall, in the case of a complaint made orally, be construed as references to a copy of the record of the complaint'.

Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 20, at the end of subsection 3(b), after 'imposed', insert:
'but no case of a complaint sent to the Board under his subsection shall be subject to the powers of the Board as set out in section 3 or 4 below '.

Amendment (b) to Amendment No. 20, in subsection (4), after second "Board", insert:
and to the accused officer".

Government Amendment No. 21.

Mr. Davidson: These amendments have a twofold purpose. They make a new provision under which the board will see the cases which otherwise would not have been submitted to it.
The amendments also provide an alternative to the time limit on the investigation of complaints which was introduced by the Standing Committee into Clause 2(1).
The effect of the new subsection (3) is that even though, under the provisions of Clause 2(2)(a), a complaints case does not need to be submitted to the board in accordance with the provisions of Clause 2(1), because disciplinary charges have been preferred in respect of the matter or matters complained of and these have been admitted by the officer concerned, the board will still have an opportunity to see the papers at the end of the case.
The amendment is designed to remove the fears expressed in Standing Committee, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) that the board might be precluded from seeing certain cases in which it had a legitimate interest. Its effect, therefore, is to allow the board to see cases which, under the present provisions of Clause 2, it would be precluded from seeing. In such cases the board has virtually no Clause 3 functions to perform because the only issue to be decided is that of punishment and it is agreed that this is solely a matter for the chief constable. To meet my hon. Friend's concern, we propose in the amendment that the board should, nevertheless, see what perhaps in a convenient shorthand term I may nickname "exempted cases".
There will be no question of the board reopening the case if only for the purpose of avoiding any risk of double jeopardy. That is why we propose that such cases should be sent to the board only after the disciplinary proceedings, including any appeal to the Secretary of State, have been concluded. But I have no doubt that the board will find it useful to have information about these cases in connection with its interest in complaints generally. Moreover, should there be a rare case in which its study of the papers reveals cause for grave concern, the board will be able to make a special report to the Secretary of State and the police authority concerned under the provisions of a later Government amendment to Clause 7 which I hope will be accepted.
As the report sent to the board under the amendment will be for information only, we thought it right to keep to a minimum the amount of information to be sent to the board. All that is required is a copy of the complaint, a copy of the investigation report, and particulars of the disciplinary charges preferred and the punishment imposed. This, therefore, will be only a very small addition to the work of the police in what is likely to be only a small number of cases.
I turn now to new subsection (4) and the related amendment to page 2, line 6. There was strong pressure from both sides of the Committee for some form of time limit on the investigation of complaints to be written into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department accepted the principle of the Committee's view but asked that an amendment stipulating a three-month time limit should be withdrawn on the undertaking that an appropriate Government amendment would be put down at a later stage. The Committee preferred, however, to insert the words appearing in lines 6 and 7 on page 2. This amendment is technically defective and the Committee, moreover, decided not to adopt a parallel amendment, discussed at the same time, which was designed to provide for an interim report if, in fact, the investigation had not been completed within three months. There is no doubt that the amendment is defective and that Clause 2(1) clearly cannot be left as it is.
We fully accept that complaints against the police should be dealt with as quickly as possible in the interests of all concerned, and all police forces have made special arrangements to ensure that this is so. The changes in procedure proposed by the Committee, moreover, to dispose quickly of anonymous and repetitious or trivial complaints should help to speed up the process generally. But some complaints—I am sure hon. Members will appreciate this—may be very serious indeed, amounting to allegations of criminal offences by police officers and may, therefore, involve a protracted criminal investigation.
Moreover, a substantial proportion of complaints arise from incidents between a member of the public and the police and could lead to that member of the public being charged before the courts. Where this happens, and the complainant himself is facing criminal proceedings, the House will know from earlier discussions that it is not normally possible, or in the interests of justice, for any full investigation of the complaint to begin until those proceedings have been completed. That is the most important and common single reason for what may seem without such an explanation to be a long delay in dealing with a complaint. While, therefore, the imposition of a time limit might cause no difficulties in most cases, there is no general time limit which, in practice, would be applicable to the variety and circumstances of all complaints.
We are, nevertheless, anxious to meet the Committee's wishes so far as we can although it will be apparent from what I have just said that it would be impracticable to leave an arbitrary time limit on the face of the Bill. There must be provision for different circumstances and it is for this reason that we propose, under the new subsection (4), to proceed by way of regulations. The details in any case would need to be worked out in consultation with the police representative bodies, among others, and to proceed by way of regulations will enable this to be done. On the basis that regulations are necessary, we accordingly propose, as a first step, the deletion of lines 6 and 7 on page 2, to the extent indicated in the amendment.
New subsection (4) makes the alternative provision which then becomes neces-

sary. We propose that the police should be required to make a first "interim" statement to the board in all cases in which at the end of a period specified in regulations under Clause 5—perhaps three months—they are not ready to submit the papers to the board under the provision of Clause 2(1).
We do not think that it would be sensible to require further "interim" statements at regular intervals thereafter in all cases. If criminal proceedings were the cause of the delay in beginning investigations into a complaint, unhappily it might be many months before the outcome of the criminal proceedings was known, and further interim reports would serve no useful purpose since the position as regards investigation of the complaint would be unchanged. It is therefore proposed in new subsection (4)(b) that provision should be made in the regulations for the various circumstances in which further interim reports would be required.
The interim report will take the form of
information as to the stage reached in dealing with the complaint".
This information might be, for example,
action suspended pending the trial of the complainant
or
some witnesses still to be interviewed",
together with such brief supporting particulars as might be necessary. But there can be no question of directing the police to produce an analysis of the results of the investigations, if any, carried out so far. This would not only add considerably to the burdens of the police but might endanger the important principle which I mentioned just now, namely, that the investigation of complaints must be left to the police.
5.30 p.m.
As is made clear by the amendment to page 2, line 37, the board's power under Clause 3(1) to ask the police for additional information about a case will not apply to the interim reports envisaged under the new subsection nor, of course, to the reports envisaged under subsection (3) but this will not preclude informal inquiry as to the reason for any delay or, in the extreme case, a formal report to the Secretary of State under the proposed amendment to Clause 7 about a grave matter—for example, what may appear


to be inordinate delay in dealing with a complaint.
The new subsection deals only with reports to the board. In drafting it, the Government considered carefully the question of sending reports and the relevant papers to the officer complained of and to the complainant. That is something about which the House obviously has strong views. The difficulties, however, are considerable. The main difficulty is that in some cases it might be contrary to the interests of justice to inform a police officer or a complainant of the stage reached, particularly in an investigation. On occasion it might hamper the investigation of a criminal offence for the suspect to know what stage the investigation had reached. For example, further witnesses might need to be interviewed. Then again, there are cases in which corruption has been alleged in which a police officer should not see a copy of the complaint while the matter is being investigated.
I accept that these difficulties would arise in only a small number of cases.

Mr. Michael Alison: On a point of information, I cannot understand how, in either of the cases that the Minister has mentioned, which are both criminal cases, the board comes into the matter at all. Because they are criminal cases, they lie outside its ambit and go straight to the DPP. They would not be subject to the board's scrutiny because they have that criminal content.

Mr. Davidson: We have had long discussions about that and no doubt we shall have them again a little later. I accept that these difficulties would arise—

Mr. Alison: With respect, the Parliamentary Secretary cannot quite brush aside this matter. To attempt to do so merely means that he has not quite understood the nature of the Bill.

Sir Bernard Braine: That is not surprising.

Mr. Alison: The Minister is saying that in certain procedures in the Bill in relation to complaints before the Police Complaints Board, information cannot be given to the police officer who may be the subject of the complaint because criminal issues may be at stake. That is his point,

but he appears to be misunderstanding the Bill fundamentally. There has been no dispute from either side, certainly not from his own side, that any complaint which has a potential criminal element—certainly corruption, the other example he mentioned, would be an example of that—did not go anywhere near the board. It is not within its ambit. It would necessarily go, under the exceptions provided for in Clause 2, to the DPP.

Mr. Davidson: Yes, but after the case has gone to the DPP, it will eventually go to the board, so the board will eventually receive the complaint and the results of the investigations into the complaint.

Mr. Alison: Mr. Alisonrose—

Mr. Davidson: I have given way.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the point.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. Member will no doubt make his point. He might let me finish dealing with the amendment. I have a feeling that he will have plenty of time, as the night goes on, to develop his points.

Mr. Alison: I must ask the Minister to give way on this, because he has not dealt with the point at all.

Mr. Davidson: No, I think that I had better—

Mr. Alison: It will simply waste time if he does not give way.

Mr. Davidson: I think that it is wasting time if I do give way at this stage. The hon. Gentleman will be replying to my speech very early in our deliberations and I will deal with the point later, I can assure him.

Mr. Alison: I would ask the Minister to deal with this point now—

Mr. Davidson: I am sorry. I am dealing at this point with the amendments. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will reply and then no doubt I shall have an opportunity to reply to his reply and it will all be made clear. He must not rush things. He will have plenty of time.
As I said, I accept that these difficulties would arise only in a small number of cases, but unfortunately we saw no


satisfactory way of defining them for the purposes of a statute or regulation. It is clear that chief officers should have complete discretion not to send copies of interim reports to complainants or the police officers complained of when it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
In these circumstances, my right hon. Friend proposes to deal with this matter by means of official guidance to chief officers of police. Chief officers at present already deal as helpfully as they can with inquiries about progress from any of the interested parties to a complaint and it should not be difficult, therefore, to work out with chief officers and others who are closely concerned an agreed policy under which chief officers, whenever possible, would send copies of the proposed interim reports to the police officers and complainants concerned as well as to the board. As for giving copies of complaints to the police officers concerned, this question arises on a later amendment—No. 28—and it may be more convenient to deal with it at that time.
I hope—although it does not appear to be the case—that I have satisfied the House about the correctness of these amendments. I hope that they will be accepted. Naturally, I shall listen with great interest to what the Opposition have to say.

Mr. Roger Sims: As the Minister said, these amendments cover several reservations which were voiced from both sides in Committee. We appreciate the Government's efforts to meet some of the points which came up, but in a number of respects, including the present amendments, they have fallen far short of what we had hoped.
Government Amendment No. 6 relates to time limits, which we discussed at some length. The three months' limit was inserted at the wish of hon. Members on both sides—indeed, it was only the Minister and three of his hon. Friends who voted against the proposal—and we were given to understand that there might be an alternative proposal at this stage. But there is none. We are not necessarily wedded to three months if there is an alternative, but none has yet been offered.
The hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, winding up the debate in Committee, undertook to look at the matter with a view to doing something on Report. She said,
I hesitate to put in a time limit, but I undertake to put one in."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A; 3rd February 1976. c. 369.]
In fact, neither she nor her hon. Friend has put one in. Instead, they have taken the time limit out, against the wishes of most hon. Members in Committee.
I appreciate that Government Amendment No. 20 implies that in certain circumstances a time limit can be made by regulation, but it was certainly the wish of most members of the Committee that some limit should be built into the Bill. I had hoped that we would be given some indication of what the Government had in mind about regulations. The Minister used the phrase
as much as three months".
Whether that was an illustration or a firm indication of the form that the regulations would take I was not clear.
In any case, Amendment No. 20 covers only the cases in which the details of the complaint have to be sent in by a certain time and not the memorandum called for in Clause 2(1)(b). Without that memorandum the board can take no action, so Amendment No. 20 will not get us very far.
On a number of occasions, reference was made in Committee to the difficulties which a policeman suffers when he has the shadow of these proceedings hanging over him, in some cases for months, and to how demoralising it must be for him and his family, particularly when such a relatively small proportion of complaints are substantiated. It is common knowledge that certain people make a habit of collecting police numbers and putting in complaints. They are not substantiated, but months elapse between a complaint being made and the outcome being made known. That is not fair to the police officer and his family. In one case within my knowledge, although it may be exceptional, 18 months elapsed. It is this sort of consideration which has been in our minds in discussing this aspect.
I accept that it is not possible to complete all inquiries within three months, but it is highly desirable that there should


be some definite and firm pressure on those concerned to keep things moving. The Standing Committee was not happy about the vague undertakings given by the Minister and wanted a time limit written into the Bill. I hope that the House will now support us in that view.
Amendment No. 20 states that even where a charge is admitted the papers shall be sent to the Police Complaints Board. Why? We have already established that any serious cases—what might be described as "first-class cases"—will be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions where a criminal element is involved, and that the bulk of the remainder, the "second-class cases", are not substantiated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) has noted, the Bill will deal only with a tiny proportion of the cases. But the whole point of Amendment No. 20, which we seek to clarify, is that although a charge may be admitted the papers will still be sent to the board, to no purpose whatever. There is nothing that the board can do about it. The process is simply adding to the paperwork and there is a danger of bureaucracy simply running riot in the board, as we have pointed out before.
Our Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 26 is self-explanatory. It would lay down that copies of the papers if sent to the board should also be sent to the officer concerned. If there was a difference of opinion between my hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary a few moments ago, it was surely over the right of the police officer to know the state of play, as it were, in his case. The Parliamentary Secretary's argument on the instances he mentioned, where the papers would be sent to the DPP if any criminal element was involved and the case would not be within the purview of the board, does not stand up. It is surely reasonable that the police officer concerned in a complaint should know exactly what the position is in his case.
Amendment No. 7 seeks to write into the Bill an undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. In Committee, hon. Members on both sides accepted that there was need for some sort of filtering mechanism to prevent the machinery from being burdened, if not clogged up, with what the hon.
Gentleman himself has described as frivilous, vexatious and idiotic complaints. We do not use the word "idiotic" in the amendment as there might be some doubt as to its parliamentary standing. But the point is that anyone can walk into a police station and say "I have a complaint", although he may not realise that it then becomes a "Complaint" with a capital "C" and has to go through the complaints machinery. It is an official complaint.
I referred in Committee to the rather odd complaint made by a gentleman about the manner in which a certain woman police constable smiled at him. We have heard of instances of differences of opinion between neighbours—an argument about the fence, for example—where someone has put in a complaint to the local police authority because the neighbour with whom he was in dispute happened to be a policeman. In Committee, my hon. Friends instanced a number of similar cases. It is common knowledge that the system is abused, and I have previously referred to the possibility of mass complaints.
5.45 p.m.
We had a number of debates on this issue in Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to frivolous complaints. He told the Committee:
The Board would be able to decide whether or not those complaints required further investigation. A preliminary report would be sent by the police that in their view they regarded the complaint as trivial or vexatious and not worth pursuing. They could stop their inquiries there, send their report to the Board, and it would be up to the Board to decide whether or not further investigations should be made. The Board might well agree with the police on the facts disclosed by that preliminary inquiry that there was so little evidence to suggest any sort of complaint at all, disciplinary or otherwise, that it was not worth pursuing. We certainly hope to devise a procedure which would cover that sort of situation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 26th February 1976; c. 730.]
If the Government have devised such a procedure, it does not appear in the Bill or in any amendment on Report, and therefore we seek to close the gap with our own amendment, which I hope will have have the support of the House.

Sir Bernard Braine: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). In Committee, hon. Members on both sides worked hard and


long to improve what was, I think most of us would agree—and I will be charitable about it—a singularly ill-drafted Bill. The Government's amendment now seeks to dispense with an amendment agreed in Committee by hon. Members on both sides after long and careful debate. That amendment required the chief officer to send his report of an investigation to the Police Complaints Board as soon as possible but certainly within a period of three months. The only exception was where disciplinary charges had been preferred. Our concern—shared across the Committee—was that, as a result of a complaint being laid by a member of the public against him, a police officer should not be left in doubt and suspense and in anxiety and fear for an unnecessarily lengthy period of time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), who represents the Police Federation, and I, who have been privileged for the past 10 years to be an adviser to the senior police officers, the Superintendents Association, told the Committee in considerable detail something about the facts of a police officer's life. The Home Secretary told us on Second Reading that the last recorded number of complaints against the police was 17,000 in one year, of which 90 per cent. were unsubstantiated. Clearly, therefore, when a complaint is made against a particular police officer—and he will know in his heart whether he is guilty or not—he should not be left in suspense for a longer period than is necessary. No doubt he will have been suspended by his chief officer. He will be under a cloud. His family will have to endure the possibility that, at the end of the day, their breadwinner will be dismissed the force. As likely as not, he will be reinstated, but the harm done to him cannot then be undone. At the same time, it was right and fair that we should provide machinery which ensures that a member of the public who has reason for complaining against the action of a police officer should be heard, and heard by a body independent of the police—on that there was no argument, and there are many good reasons why that should be inserted into the Bill. We were wise, therefore, to insist on the inclusion of a three-month time limit. Yet the Government now suggest that we should accept

their wishy-washy amendment which does not honour the promise given in Committee that the matter would be dealt with properly here.
In Committee the Minister said:
I hope hon. Members will accept the undertaking that there should be a time limit but that limit should be left to me."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3rd February 1976, c. 369–70.]
We now see the result—an amendment which is totally unacceptable. The House should reject it out of hand. In place of the clear and precise wording which was approved by the majority of the Committee, we have imprecise wording and a time limit which is to be the subject of a regulation which is not yet made. Too much in the Bill is to be left to the making of regulations at some unknown time in the future. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds and I had to keep on asking whether the Home Office wanted police co-operation because without it a complaints machinery is unworkable. The Government must give precise undertakings about consultations with the police staff associations about the making of Regulations.
Moreover, the amendment makes no reference to a maximum period. This should be a matter for Parliament and not one to be left to Ministers. Throughout the Committee I was strongly critical of the powers that we were being asked to give to the Home Secretary and I gave numerous warnings about undermining the authority and credibility of chief officers. We are dealing here not with the Salvation Army or some other voluntary association, but with the police service, where everything depends upon the authority, credibility and public-spiritedness of the chief officer and the quality of the men under his command.
At a time of rising crime and increasing terrorism we must be careful not to undermine the authority of the chief officer or the morale of the police. My doubts on the subject have prevailed because we agreed that the issue is almost without precedent in the history of Parliament. We agreed that the Home Secretary was the most unsuitable Minister to appoint members of the complaints board. There are many reasons for that which I will not go into, although the day is young and we may yet have to sit until the early hours of the morning.
The weaknesses still remain in the Bill and I do not entirely share the generous and charitable view of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. Those weaknesses should be exposed. My doubts prevailed because we decided in the end that the Home Secretary should not be the appointing officer, although the Committee was not sure who should be put in his place. I thought that it should be the Lord Chancellor and some other hon. Members had ideas about the Ombudsman. We all agreed that the one person who should not take on that responsibility is the Home Secretary who is himself a police authority. We agreed that the Home Secretary should not appoint members of the complaints board.
In the last day or two there has been an example of just how dilatory and wrong-headed the Home Office can be on matters which touch upon police discipline and morale. I am a little hesitant about bringing the matter up but what I have to say must be said in the public interest. I refer to the appalling decision of the Home Secretary to require the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire to reinstate in the police force of that county a police officer who was dismissed early last year because of gross indecency with young boys. I understand that the officer concerned has resigned today.
I cannot think of a decision which is more calculated to undermine the confidence of the public in the police and the Home Office or to undermine the power of the chief officer himself to deal with a matter of that kind.
I am advised that the Police Superintendents' Association views the decision with shock and horror. I see from today's The Times that Sergeant Edward Loughlin, the secretary of Bedfordshire Police Federation, said yesterday:
We are horrified and appalled at the Home Office decision. Members of this force cannot see how they can work alongside a man convicted of such offences and do not want him back".
I cannot think of an action which is more calculated to undermine the morale of police officers or to undermine the confidence of the public. The interesting thing about that decision—which is relevant to the amendment—is that it took the Home Secretary 16 months to force that deci-

sion upon the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I should like to say a few words if the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has finished his point about the Home Secretary. The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter although it seems irrelevant to the amendment.

Sir B. Braine: It would be wiser if the Minister waited until she heard the rest of my argument.

Dr. Summerskill: I should like to say something about the matter because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not here to speak for himself.

Sir B. Braine: It is open to the hon. Lady to say anything she likes. The House is eager to hear a defence for the decision. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from commenting.

Mr. Alison: Where is the Home Secretary?

Sir B. Braine: I should like to know where the Home Secretary is. I expected to see him here, because it is his Bill and he is responsible for it. I am talking of a decision that he made. I shall not withhold my comments because the Home Secretary has seen fit to absent himself from discussion on a Bill that is of major importance to the police. Where is he?

Mr. John Stonehouse: The Home Secretary is going to Europe —to Brussels.

Sir B. Braine: It is not for me to provide an explanation for the Home Secretary's absence. The Minister will have every opportunity to reply to my remarks, which are relevant to the amendment. There is nothing to prevent her from replying in detail later to everything that I say. But she has encouraged me to go into the matter in more detail than I had originally intended.
If The Times is correct, seven police officers yesterday expressed concern at the reinstatement of a constable who was dismissed early last year because of gross indecency with young boys. It was said that they believe that this could set a dangerous precedent.
6.0 p.m.
The whole purpose of the Bill was to promote greater confidence by the public in the machinery for investigating their complaints against the police. I do not think that it is disputed that the vast majority of the complaints made under the existing arrangements are trivial and cannot be sustained. That does not mean that there is not a case for improving the machinery to provide a sifting process so that genuine and serious complaints can be made against the police by members of the public. We are entitled to know that the police are not judge and jury in their own case.
On that issue there was never any division in the House. We were in complete agreement that there should be an independent element in the hearing of complaints against the police. All that we urged was that police officers should not be exposed to double jeopardy and that there should be no undue delay in such complaints being properly investigated.
The report in the Bedfordshire case, which was dealt with under the existing disciplinary arrangements, went to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and there followed a prosecution and conviction. Does anyone in the country think that the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire would have been justified in retaining in the force a man who had interfered with children? If any hon. Member thinks that the officer acted wrongly, I hope that he or she will say so.
What is the first thing children should be taught about the police by parents and teachers? It is "The police constable is your friend. If you are in difficulty, if you want information or help, you can always trust a constable." I submit, therefore, that the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire was acting in accordance with the highest traditions of his force and with a due sense of responsibility to the public when he dismissed the man.
The Home Office took 16 months to decide what should be done about the man's appeal, at the end of which it overruled the chief officer—incidentally, costing the Bedfordshire police authority £5,000 in arrears of pay. If there had not been that delay, the cost to the ratepayers would have been less. I hope that every ratepayer in Bedfordshire will

note how that case was handled by the Government. It had arisen in February 1975, and the Home Office did not notify the Bedfordshire police of its decision until 26th May this year.
I return now to the amendment. The Minister responsible for the delay and for the appalling decision at the end of it is the Minister who now seeks to take out of the Bill the requirement that in the case of an investigation the report should be sent by the chief constable to the complaints board in three months or less. That is a precise requirement, but we now have this wishy-washy provision seeking to put the responsibility on a Regulation that has not yet been made.
I want to say with all the responsibility that I can summon up that this is un-accceptable to the police service and the general public, and it should be unacceptable to the House. I do not know how the matter will turn out, but I trust that the maximum fuss will be made about it in another place. The amendment should be thrown out.

Dr. Summerskill: As I said earlier, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department will reply to the debate if he catches the eye of the Chair, but I should like to remind the House of a few facts of the situation concerning Police Constable Betteridge. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), who raised it, referred to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Under the Police Act 1964, as under previous Police Acts, a member of the police force in England and Wales who is dealt with for an offence against discipline may appeal to the Home Secretary. On an appeal, the Home Secretary may make an order allowing the appeal, dismissing it or varying the punishment. He is not required to give reasons for his decisions on appeal, and it is long-standing practice not to do so.
On average, about 40 appeals a year are made to the Home Secretary. In taking his decision he acts after appropriate advice, including that of his legal advisers and Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary. A primary consideration for the Home Secretary in such cases, as for any appellate authority, is to ensure that all relevant considerations have been fairly and properly taken into account


in the disciplinary hearing by the chief constable concerned.
In the case of Police Constable Betteridge, the Home Secretary's decision to vary the punishment imposed by the chief constable followed an appeal, one of the grounds of which was that medical considerations had not been given due weight in the hearing. After careful consideration of all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend decided that he could not uphold the punishment of dismissal. However, this did not preclude consideration by the chief constable and by Mr. Betteridge himself of the suitability of his continuing as a member of the force. Mr. Betteridge has now formally resigned.

Mr. Stonehouse: I intervene briefly to support some of the observations about the need to speed up the procedures for dealing with complaints against the police. I was very impressed by what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said about the Bedfordshire case. Although I accept that it is for the Home Secretary to make a final decision after an appeal has been made, I do not think that the Under-Secretary's intervention has dealt with one of the serious points, namely, the length of time taken to deal with the matter, which was 16 months. That was an incredible period, bearing in mind that what mattered at the end of the day was the medical evidence, which surely would have been available to the Home Secretary and his advisers within weeks of the appeal.
I agree about the need to use sparingly the machinery for making complaints. Incidentally, I am sorry that the House has been virtually deserted during the discussion of these important points. The Government Benches have been almost completely empty. Apart from a number of Ministers and their PPSs, there is not, and there has not been during the recent speeches from the Opposition Benches, one Labour Member present. In view of the time—it is only 10 minutes past 6 o'clock in the evening, not 10 minutes past 6 o'clock in the morning—it is deplorable that so few Labour Members are taking an interest in the Report stage of this very important Bill.
I believe, along with those who have already spoken in the debate, that the

position of the Home Secretary in relation to the checking of the complaints made against members of the police force is crucial. Delay in considering a complaint against a policeman is vital. Bearing in mind the length of time taken in considering the Bedfordshire case, for which there has as yet been no satisfactory explanation, the House will not be persuaded that the length of time should be a matter for the Home Secretary and his advisers. I share the view that a clear time limit should be established within the Bill.
In the matter of complaints against the police it is very important that a balance should be struck. It is important that members of the public should have an opportunity to make legitimate complaints against the police, but it is also extremely important that members of the police should be protected against frivolous and vexatious complaints which may be made against them by members of the public who are not interested in seeing that justice is done but who have a particular axe to grind and whose relatives or friends might be pursued by the police.
Reference has been made to the need to have a filtering process, and I should like to examine that matter for a moment. We, as Members of Parliament, know that many members of the public, including our own constituents, come to us with frivolous complaints against Ministries, Ministers, civil servants and municipal employees, and we have to act as a filter to determine what are serious and what are not. Very often we have the disagreeable job of telling a constituent that we cannot pursue his inquiry because we do not consider it serious enough. There are members of the public who take a contrary view, and such persons may go on and on for a long time pursuing what are bees in their own bonnets.
If the Police Complaints Board is to be burdened with complaints of that sort, there may be an enormous build-up of petty complaints. The serious and legitimate complaints that are made against members of the force, and with which the Police Complaints Board should be dealing, may not be dealt with, because of the weight of trivialities that the board has to deal with. Therefore, there needs to be some filter.
I suggest that the filter might operate in this way. A complaint may be made initially to members of the police force,


who have a duty to pass it on to the Police Complaints Board. If those members of the police force—whoever they are—who receive the complaint initially feel that it is not a justifiable complaint, because it is obviously trivial, they should be empowered to give a quick reply to the person in question indicating that he should have another opportunity of pursuing his complaint but that it should not automatically go to the Police Complaints Board, because it could clutter up the board with trivialities.
If the system by which complaints are made to the ombudsman were adopted, a situation could arise in which, if a member of the public complained and his complaint was rejected initially by the police authorities, he could then pursue the matter through a Member of Parliament, who would consider the full case presented to him, and could then decide that, notwithstanding the initial objection of the police force to the matter being passed automatically to the board, it could go forward. In that way a protection for members of the public could be provided, and there would be an opportunity for the Police Complaints Board to avoid being cluttered up with needless complaints which would prevent its doing the job that it ought to be doing.
6.15 p.m.
No fewer than 17,000 complaints a year are made against the police, and many of these are frivolous and unnecessary. However, it turns out that about 10 per cent. of them are justified. Although 1,700 complaints in a year is not a very large figure, it is not, on the other hand, insignificant. We should ensure that the board has a full opportunity to investigate those complaints that are likely to be substantiated at the end of the day. If, as a result of the publicity that this measure will give to the opportunity of members of the public to make complaints to the board, the number of complaints were to rise from 17,000 to about 30,000, the board might be so overwhelmed that the really significant and important complaints were not properly investigated for a long time. That would be regrettable, because, as hon. Members have said, it is a very distressing experience for any professional person, and certainly for a member of the police, to have a complaint hanging over him. It

can be as distressing as any other experience.
We ought to bear in mind that the police do a difficult job. Although a number of them may be bent and corrupt, and may need to be dealt with very firmly, the great majority are doing an honourable and worthwhile job in circumstances that are sometimes tedious, and, indeed, extremely dangerous. I do not think that we should create a system that would make their job more difficult, or would produce anguish for them in the performance of that job. That is why I support the case for investigating legitimate complaints speedily, so that they can be dealt with and got out of the way as soon as possible. I also believe that there should be careful consideration of a filtering system to avoid the Police Complaints Board being cluttered up with a lot of stupid complaints which it should not have to deal with in the first place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Before I call the next hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker made it quite clear that a series of amendments is being discussed at the same time as the amendment that has been moved. They are on the list of selection.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: In the circumstances, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department whether he intends to reply to the question raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), and particularly on the question of his own words "vexatious, idiotic and trivial complaints?"

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is very kind. It is, of course, my intention to reply to all the points that have been made, and I shall certainly do so. I must tell the hon. Gentleman, contrary to what he appeared to think in his intervention almost at the beginning of my speech, that I have his points well in mind. They will be dealt with, and I can assure him that when the time comes I shall reply very fully.

Mr. Aitken: I was not entirely surprised by that procrastinating response. The linguistic gobbledegook of the Government amendments, especially


Amendment No. 20, only confirms that what this Bill is creating is an expensive over-bureaucratic legal contraption, which might have been invented by Heath Robinson or the cartoonist Emett.
The Parliamentary Secretary got himself lost in his own self-created Hampton Court Maze in his own amendments, and he was devastated by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash, who showed only too clearly that the Parliamentary Secretary did not understand the moments at which and the cases in which the Police Complaints Board would come into operation. I look forward with great relish to his reply—which I see I am now about to get.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is not about to get my reply. He will get my reply at the end of his speech. I am astonished that the look of blandness on my face appears to him to have been a look of devastation. I do not recall having been devastated.

Mr. Aitken: I am only too pleased to revise my wording: for "devastation" read "incomprehension".
I was not surprised that, following this monumental piece of legislative incompetence, which will create an expensive Whitehall monster for which there is no proved public demand, there were Press reports at the weekend to the effect that Sir Robert Mark, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, is contemplating resignation as a result of the Bill. It is noticeable that there has been no denial of those reports, particularly in view of Sir Robert's willingness to speak out on most topics. Therefore, a Home Office Minister must make a statement about those Press reports. If it is true that, because of this Bill, the most brilliant head of the Metropolitan Police since the days of Peel is on the verge of resignation, it would be a national tragedy. We demand a statement to reassure the House on that point.
I turn to the specific amendments, the most distressing aspect of which concerns time limits. The right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) drew attention to the complete absence from this debate of Labour Back Benchers. He might have been able to draw attention to that fact with even greater emphasis had he been aware of the demand for

a cut-off period, on a three-monthly basis, brought into the Committee's purview by Labour Back Benchers, now so noticeable by their absence.
In view of pressure exerted in Committee, a categorical undertaking was given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I must remind the hon. Lady once again of her own words. In Standing Committee, when referring to the specific question of a timetable and a cut-off period, she said:
I hope hon. Members will accept the undertaking that there should be a time limit but that limit should be left to me."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3rd February 1976; c. 369.]
That was a firm undertaking, and I emphasise that it has not been honoured. We wish to know why it has not been honoured. In the absence of adequate reasons, I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against these amendments.
The worry about the need for a time limit was brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East, namely, that police officers should not be left in anguish with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads for many months. We heard about a recent case in which a man was left worrying about his position for a period as long as 18 months. That is a valid point and it has not been adequately answered. The absence of any definite honouring of the undertaking to which I have referred is reason enough for us to vote against these amendments.
I wish to refer to Amendment No. 7, which seeks to exclude trivial or vexatious complaints. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department used the words "frivolous, vexatious and idiotic complaints". The large proportion of complaints against the police fall into that category. It is certainly clear that the number of trivial complaints will multiply as a result of this Bill. The hon. Lady prophesied that the number of complaints would increase from a figure of 17,000 last year to an estimated 25,000 in 1977. It was implied that part of this increase would be due to the mere existence of the board and to the fact that the public would be aware that such a board was in business and was available to complain to.
I believe that complains will multiply because of the changing rôle of the police


service from its traditional law enforcement rôle to its increasing community service rôle. This conflict between the rôle of police force and police service can give rise to complaints which in themselves are trivial. We have heard about the complaint against the woman police constable who smiled. I have heard of complaints by people who have not been given a cup of tea when at police stations. We need to find some way utterly of excluding that kind of complaints from the board. The right hon. Member for Walsall, North said that some form of quick reply was needed so that trivial complaints should not clutter up the board. He put forward the ingenious suggestion that Members of Parliament might act as a sieve. I hope that the Government will give careful consideration to that proposal.
I refer finally to the characteristically trenchant speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East, who mentioned the case of Police Constable Betteridge, the Bedfordshire constable who was dismissed following a conviction for an indecent assault, and who was reinstated on the direction of the Home Secretary following an appeal, with full back pay—although we understand that he has since decided of his own olition to resign from the force.
That case shows that there are real fears that there will be an unacceptable degree of political interference with the police service. The Home Secretary knows that there are fears that the decision may have been a political one. I am prepared to accept that that was not the case, but public anxiety certainly exists on that score. How much greater will the fears be that this Bill will be the Trojan horse that lets political interference into the internal disciplinary processes of the police service when the Government are seeking to bring into existence a board consisting of nine Prime Ministerial appointees. None of us can be complacent about that situation, even having heard the hon. Lady's explanation of the facts of the case and even accenting entirely what she said.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend said that the hon. Lady had explained the facts. She did not explain any facts at all. She told the House that it is the custom and procedure in such cases for

reasons not to be given. That in itself gives rise to serious doubts indeed. I hope that the House will not be left in doubt as to why in this grave case the Home Secretary saw fit, after 16 months' delay, to override the Chief Constable of Bedfordshire. There is grave disquiet not only among the public but also among police officers. We are entitled to have an explanation, and I hope that my hon. Friend will insist on one.

Mr. Aitken: I share my hon. Friend's disquiet about the delay. The one fact given by the hon. Lady was that there were medical reasons for the golden handshake given to the constable. However, whatever those medical reasons, the psychological effect on the general public and in terms of confidence in the police service is serious. It will be much more serious, because it will not be the Home Secretary, whom we all respect as a man of honour, who will be making these decisions; they will be made by a politically appointed Police Complaints Board, which will have the power to overturn decisions of chief officers.
What concerns us about these amendments is that no machinery has been created to dispose of frivolous and vexatious complaints at an early stage. In addition, we deplore the fact that the firm undertaking given about time limits has not been honoured. Because that undertaking has been broken, I shall advise my hon. Friends to vote against the amendment.

6.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): I am intervening briefly to deal with one or two points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). We do go round in circles on this Bill. The hon. Gentleman was saying, in a most eloquent, agreeable and flattering way, that he was worried about the power being removed from the Home Secretary and placed into the more political hands of the Prime Minister. As I recall it, this was done entirely in response to pressure from both sides, particularly from the Conservative side, in Committee.

Mr. Aitken: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I was saying that the danger was that this political


interference could be seen to be falling into the hands of Prime Ministerial appointees. The danger would have been there had there also been Home Secretary appointees.

Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that comes very powerfully from the lips of the hon. Gentleman in view of the attitude taken in Committee. I assure the House, if assurance is needed, that during the two periods for which I have been Home Secretary—now longer than any other period since Lord Butler held the office —there has not been any question of political interference with the police. There has been no question of political interference in relation to the case raised by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine).
I have a difficult statutory duty which is narrowly defined and which imposes on me, as a result of the Police Act 1964, following previous Police Acts, a duty to act in an appellate capacity in relation to police disciplinary charges. I am not quite sure of the position of the association which the hon. Gentleman represents, but the Police Federation attaches considerable importance to the fact that there should be this appellate capacity and that the word of the chief constable should not be final in these matters. On a recent occasion the federation expressed to me its strong view that my functions in this respect should not be carried out in a perfunctory manner and that I should not automatically endorse what chief constables do.
I endeavour to carry out this quasi-judicial function with the greatest degree of quasi-judicial responsibility that I have. I can assure the House that I do not act—although the ultimate responsibility is mine, or the responsibility of any who hold my office—without full legal and professional police advice from within my Department. What I have to be sure about is that the hearing has been properly conducted and that everything has been appropriately taken into account. The statement that my hon. Friend read out on my behalf this afternoon makes this clear. I regret the delay. It was too long. The case ought to have been dealt with more expeditiously. I do not, in difficult circumstances, regret any other aspect of the matter, although I

think that the solution that has emerged, which is one I always believed would emerge, has been the right one.

Sir Bernard Braine: The right hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber when I said what I felt I had to say. There are two aspects of this matter. No one disputes the right hon. Gentleman's exercise of his appellate jurisdiction. He is a fair-minded man and would certainly consider the matter most carefully. The aspects that concern the House, and that are relevant to this Bill, are as follows: first, here was a case of a police officer convicted of gross indecency of one kind or another. It took 16 months for the appeal to be considered. Why was there such a delay? Secondly, does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that some explanation is owed to the public and the police service about why a police officer who had been convicted of that kind of offence and who stands in a particular position of trust where the public, and children in particular, are concerned, should have been reinstated over the head of the chief office of police?

Mr. Jenkins: The question at issue was not whether this man should continue to serve but whether, since the hearing did not in my view take account of all the necessary considerations, he should be given this considerable punishment of dismissal, with the loss of all his rights in addition—having taken medical evidence into account—to the light sentence, a suspended sentence I believe, which the court chose to impose. We hear a great deal about double jeopardy and double punishment. We have to take this into account. The man concerned is no longer in the police force. That is a satisfactory outcome
I am inhibited in this matter. I have to exercise this function in accordance with precedents stretching back over 50 years. It is not the case that the Home Secretary gives reasons for his decision. Perhaps this is not wholly satisfactory. Perhaps in times when people expect to have reasons given we cannot depend upon authority exercised, as I am perfectly convinced it was, with total impartiality and propriety. Perhaps people feel that reasons ought to be given. I will consider this for the future. There may be certain difficulties.
The hon. Member for Essex, South-East has paid me the compliment of saying that I am fair-minded. I know that he, too, will be fair-minded and will realise that I cannot break a precedent of 50 years in an off-the-cuff reply during a debate. This is a duty which the Home Secretary has to discharge and which is discharged about 40 times a year. It is a difficult duty, and one for which I cannot lay down a new course off-the-cuff. I shall consider whether it would be fair to give reasons for the decisions that are reached.
I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman really wishes to lay stress on his last point, that of overruling the chief constable. This is a duty specifically laid upon the Secretary of State for the Home Department by the Police Act 1964 and previous Police Acts. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this should never be done he is saying that there should be no appellate authority in respect of disciplinary charges against police officers beyond their chief constables. I am sure that, whatever its reaction to a particular case may be, this would not be remotely welcome to the Police Federation. It would be most antipathetical to the point of view that it takes. I very much doubt whether it would be acceptable to the association of senior police officers that the hon. Gentleman represents.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that in the eyes of the public the net result of this is that this man has been given the odd £5,000 reward for his extremely unpleasant behaviour?

Mr. Jenkins: In trying to exercise justice, it is often the case that one has to do things which in the eyes of the public may not appear to be wholly reasonable. The view I take is that in view of the circumstances of the hearing the man's dismissal, with the loss of all rights, was not an appropriate punishment. There is no doubt that this is wholly within the duties laid upon me. They are not pleasant or easy duties, but as long as they are laid upon me and I have to discharge them I propose to do so in accordance with what I believe to be the rules of natural justice.

Sir Bernard Braine: The right hon. Gentleman has dealt with one point but

not with the other. The House understands that it cannot argue with him about the reasons for his decision not being given. I am grateful to him for saying he will consider whether, in future, some explanation can be given in such cases. This has been one of the most extraordinary decisions any Home Secretary has made. The other point is why, if there were all these factors, it has taken 16 months for the Home Secretary to reach his decision. He has left everyone in doubt—the man, the police service, the Bedfordshire police authority and those members of the public who were aware of the danger to their children.

Mr. Jenkins: There has been no question of danger to children in Bedfordshire. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whom I respect, will not use emotive words of that sort. The man has not been in the police service during the period and there is now no question of his return to the service. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not muddy the issue with emotive phrases of that sort. I have said that I believe that the period taken was too long. I regret that. It should have been done more expeditiously. We are sometimes accused of acting too precipitately in such matters and sometimes of acting too slowly. There were certain difficulties.
I do not for a moment agree that it was one of the most extraordinary decisions taken. One of the considerations that I have had fully in mind was whether the hearing was properly carried out, bearing in mind all the considerations that should have been before it. That is the core of the duty which I have to perform in this respect. I regard the carrying out of that duty as even more important than the immediate effect it may have on the public. That is the essence of any appellate function and I know of no appellate body, which confronted with circumstances in which it is not satisfied with a hearing, would not act.
I turn to the second point raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). He asked about the position of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. The commissioner has made it clear that he would prefer a different Bill. However, he would not want the same sort of Bill as the hon. Member wants. One of the difficulties is that everyone prefers a different


sort of Bill. I have very great respect for the views of the commissioner and I have called them in aid before, and he believes that there should be an independent element in complaints against the police. He put forward his views on this to the working party in 1973, but the scheme he proposed was not acceptable.
Representatives of the Police Federation claimed that the sort of scheme that the commissioner put forward involved the risk of double jeopardy, which is what I am trying to avoid. It is easier to disagree than to reach an agreement upon a scheme which is completely acceptable to all. The current Bill does not breach any principles to which police organisations attach importance—it certainly does not involve double jeopardy. The chief officers, including the commissioner, accept that this Bill's proposals provide a basis for a workable scheme, which would not undermine them. The commissioner prefers his own scheme, but other police bodies do not prefer it, and indeed, have considerable objections to it. In so far as we have made certain changes to the Bill in response to hon. Members opposite in Committee, these have made the commissioner more suspicious of the Bill rather than more welcoming to it. Therefore, the Opposition are not in a position to say that I have moved away from the commissioner on this matter.
The commissioner would obviously prefer a different Bill, but I can assure hon. Members that he has no plans to resign before his normal retirement date.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: It would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could amplify the question of the time limits. Will he tell us what time limits he expects to introduce in Regulations made under Section 5?

Mr. Jenkins: I hope that the period will be about three months. I do not wish to be bound absolutely, because I did not hear that part of the debate, but my right hon. and hon. Friends did deal with these points earlier and I have tried to deal with the two specific and immediate points raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, East.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: It is difficult to come in at this late stage of a Bill, especially as

I have not had the benefit of being a member of the Committee, and I do not claim any special knowledge in this tricky area. However, I wish to make a few laymen's comments and ask a couple of questions.
As hon. Members of this House our experience of handling complaints is fairly wide—wider than in any other profession, because we receive many complaints every day. But in my 17 years as a Member of this House I have received only two complaints about the police, which is a remarkable tribute to them. One was about the Metropolitan Police and one about the Gloucestershire Constabulary. In both cases I was satisfied that an appropriate investigation was made into these complaints, but it was the manner of imparting the findings of the chief constable that caused my concern. In both cases the chief constable said he had investigated the complaint and found it to be groundless, fullstop. That is what gives rise to pressure for a complaints board. It may well be that justice is being done, but one does not know it is being done and does not have any evidence to substantiate that.
I have considerable sympathy with the Home Secretary, who exercised his appellant function in relation to PC Betteridge, or Mr. Betteridge as he is now. There we have an example of at least an appeal being heard. But even now my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) has no knowledge of whether or not the Home Secretary was right to take this action, because the facts of that case have not been made public and probably should not be made public under the present state of the law.
In any other matter, such as a complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner or a complaint before a court in a civil action, the evidence is made public, and those involved have knowledge of the facts, the evidence, and the relevant considerations. Perhaps the trouble with complaints against the police is that this is not possible. We have an unbalanced situation in which an aggrieved constable can appeal to the Home Secretary, but an aggrieved complainant has no such appeal at all. In the two constituency cases which I mentioned, when I received the answer from the chief of police in each case there was no further avenue that could be explored if the grievance


still existed in the mind of the complainant. Is this the right way to proceed?
My own view about the Police Complaints Board is that the very secrecy surrounding its deliberations will nullify its effect. At the end of the day the board will give the same answer as that which I received from the chief constables —that the complaint was groundless and has been dismissed. The crucial question is, how justified is the need for expanding the reasons for dismissing or accepting a complaint, and what special considerations are there in relation to the police? What makes them so special that it is not possible to give more facts and evidence in public?
I can conceive that there may be cases or complaints where it is positively not in the national interest that too much should be divulged. Certainly that is so with matters of security, or with bombings, or when spying is involved. But the vast bulk of complaints against the police are not about these matters, and therefore one wants a procedure which allows the public, or at least the complainant, to be given more information.

Sir Bernard Braine: My hon. Friend is making a most interesting submission, but does he not concede that the vast majority of people would accept that in matters of security, secrecy should be maintained? But where the safety of children and young persons is concerned there is not a father or mother in the land who does not feel deeply about the matter. Whatever reasons there may be for not giving a public explanation of this case, to overrule a decision of a chief officer to dismiss a man who he thinks has failed in his trust as a guardian of the law where young people are concerned is a most serious matter which concerns the nation as a whole.

Mr. Ridley: I do not want to get involved in a particular case, because I know too little about it, simply because we have not been given the full information. If this case had not gone before the police network and, ultimately, the Home Secretary, but had instead gone to the courts, a great deal more would have been known about it. There seems to be here a genuine parallel between the amount of information made available in court as opposed to that made avail-

able under the procedure we are considering today. My first plea therefore is that the secrecy, not the higher appeal, may well be the real problem.
This procedure will destroy the authority of chief constables to a very great extent. I imagine that every convicted or disciplined policemen will appeal to the Home Secretary just as Mr. Betteridge did, and that every unsatisfied complainant will try to get to the complaints board. In those circumstances the chief constable will merely be a sort of postman passing on the complaints up the line. He will be rather like we Members of Parliament who refer complaints to Ministers or the Parliamentary Commissioner.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member has made an unfair suggestion. Most hon. Members study any complaint made to them to see whether they are passing a justifiable complaint to the Ministry concerned. I do not think that we automatically pass on everything that is put to us.

Mr. Ridley: I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps some of us exercise that function a little more rigorously than our constituents like, but that is a different point. In our capacity for passing on complaints we do not investigate them; we merely see whether they are serious enough to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner. The right hon. Member sees a Member of Parliament as a filter, and he is absolutely right. That is an extremely important function, which cuts down the number of complaints which officials and the Parliamentary Commissioner have to consider. To put the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police or a chief constable into that position would be totally wrong. Hon. Members are in no way involved in management. We are representatives of our constituents. To turn a chief constable into a filter or a first court from which everyone would appeal to a higher court would be to destroy his authority in the force.
I have not followed the proceedings on the Bill with any great care, but I think that the procedure in it is misconceived. We need to open up consideration of complaints against the police and to make a better report available to complainants or to hon. Members. Why not allow hon. Members to perform the same


function for the police as they perform for the Parliamentary Commissioner? Why not allow them to be the filter and trust them by showing them the report? There may be something in it that should not be made public or be made available to the complainant. I have found that my constituents accept my word. When I write back to them saying that I have taken their case to the Minister and he has convinced me that the constituent is wrong, I find that my word is usually accepted. Often I am not at liberty to disclose information given to me by the Minister which shows why the constituent is wrong, but I assure them that as an independent-minded person I believe that the Minister is acting properly. Only occasionally is my word not accepted, and then only by persons who make it their professional business to complain.
Until justice is seen to be done in this matter I do not believe that any number of boards, tribunals or other bureaucratic set-ups will allay public worries about the behaviour of the police, or reduce the number of complaints, which would be the ideal, so that everyone was as lucky as I am, and had only a small number of complaints against the police. We would be better off, but to get that trust the police must deal more openly with complainants rather than setting up this appeal court to go over the heads of chief constables, which could do great damage to their authority in their respective forces.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: In fairness to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) who is so anxious to hear my reply to what he regarded as a devastating intervention—that was not my assessment of it—perhaps I could answer the point briefly. He seemed to imply that because a complaint had a criminal element and therefore went to the Director of Public Prosecutions it would not eventually come to the board. We have had this argument over and over again. Let me explain it once more. The hon. Member said that I showed incomprehension in my face. I could not comprehend that the hon. Gentleman, at this late stage, cannot understand the Bill.
A complaint is made and is then investigated. Until it has been investigated, no one, not even the hon. Member, whose wisdom is very great, can tell whether

it will prove to be a criminal matter. Only the police through their skill and investigation are in a position to reveal that. Therefore an interim report may well be needed under Amendment No. 21. If the matter proved to be criminal it would go to the Director of Public Prosecutions. After the Director's decision was known the case would go to the board to consider any disciplinary matter. As the hon. Member knows, disciplinary matters can arise out of the same offence but not based on the same facts. That is why an interim report is necessary in those cases, and that is why —since there may be a lengthy investigation—it may not be fitting, proper or even possible to impose a time limit.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Alison: The Minister's reply was most uncharacteristic. His concentration on the Bill is generally such that he gets straight to the point, but for some mysterious reason he seems to have missed the point of this debate.
The point of Amendment (b) to Amendment No. 20 is that when a matter is to be sent to the board, details should also be sent to the police officer concerned. The Minister said they could not be sent to the officer because he could not be told about matters which were subject to criminal investigation. I do not dispute that. Our argument is based on what the police regulations provide. I notice the Minister is looking with alacrity to the Box for advice.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman has misconstrued the movement of my head. I have not looked at the Box during the whole debate.

Mr. Alison: Perhaps that is the trouble. I was putting an optimistic construction upon the fact that the Minister has a profound aversion to looking at me. I do not blame him for that, but I had hoped that it was because he was looking at the Box.
The famous Home Office Circular No. 21 says that in cases where a complaint amounts to an allegation that an officer has committed a criminal offence, he need not immediately be informed of the complaint if this might impede investigation of the alleged criminal offence. I understand and accept that it would be improper to lay before a police officer details of an investigation to establish


whether there had been a criminal act. It would be crazy to alert the police officer concerned that he was being investigated. Amendment (b) to Amendment No. 20 does not envisage that details should be sent to the officer while an investigation is being conducted into a criminal action. This is entirely outside the range of what we propose.
I advise the Parliamentary Secretary to get hold of a copy of this crucial Home Office circular which he was good enough to make available to hon. Members on the Standing Committee. Paragraph 12 says that unless a chief officer is satisfield that no criminal offence has been committed, he must send a report of the investigation into the complaint to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
While an investigation is going on into the alleged criminal activity of a police officer, it would be wrong to tell that officer about it. He may cover his tracks. But when the investigation has been completed, a chief officer must send the case to the DPP unless he is satisfied that no criminal offence has been committted.
By definition, this means the investigation is over and there could be no question of alerting a police officer at that stage. A decision would have been reached whether to send the case to the DPP and when it is sent, the investigation is complete. Whether the case goes to the board is not the hare I am chasing. That is irrelevant. When a case goes to the DPP, it means that the investigation has been completed and it is possible at that point to tell the officer concerned about the complaint. He cannot skid off, be alerted or cover his tracks.
I do not think the Minister has taken the point. He seemed to think we were trying to deal with the case which, after going to the DPP, is sent to the board. This is water under the bridge. We have argued this point before and we are satisfied that the Government do not know their own minds. They are in a state of confusion and we do not wish to compound confusion further. There is enough uncertaintly about the Bill already.
The point we are making is crystal clear. When an investigation into an officer's misdemeanour is completed, he should be informed. Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 20 includes the necessity to tell the board what stage police procedure in a case has reached. It

must by then be established whether it is a case for the DPP and it seems elementary justice that the policeman concerned should also be told.
I hope that the Minister will look again at this matter. I know that he has the greatest sympathy for the position of officers who could find themselves under great strain. Perhaps the Government could introduce an amendment in another place to deal with this point. If an investigation is complete, there is no danger that an officer will cover his tracks. He should be given the same chance as the board to hear about the progress of the case. It would be unfair if he were left out.
The Minister has also not dealt adequately with the amendment relating to trivial or vexatious complaints. Despite his protestations and his choicest use of adjectives and nouns which have reverberated around the House since the Committee, the Minister has not told us on the Floor of the House what proposals the Government have to sift out the unimportant complaints so that the board is left only with major complaints. Will it be done by regulations? Something must be done to ensure that the board is not encumbered with irrelevancies. Our amendment is straightforward and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Under Amendment No. 7, a chief officer has the opportunity to report to the board that he believes a complaint to be trivial or vexatious and not worth investigation. The board does not necessarily have to accept that report, but the amendment gives the Minister the opportunity to fulfil his commitment. A complaint can result in two courses of action. The first is that the complaint is trivial or vexatious and not worth investigating and a chief officer can report accordingly to the board. This is perfectly reasonable. In nine cases out of 10, the board will accept that recommendation. It will save a whole bureaucratic operation and reduce the case load and the amount of paperwork. If the Government are not prepared to accept what we put forward—it would perhaps amount to one case in 100 a year—as a reasonable way of determining the reasonable and the unreasonable, we are prepared to consider their propositions, but the Minister has not produced a positive proposition to that effect,


or sought to argue against the validity of the amendment. In the light of this debate I hope that there will be a reconsideration about advising an officer when an investigation is over and doing something to strain out the trivial complaints.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment proposed—

Mr. Alison: I have made a substantial plea to the Parliamentary Secretary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am in the middle of putting the Question.

Mr. Alison: As you have not completed the oracular oration, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had started doing so. Once I start to put the Question I must finish doing so.

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that you have not actually put the Question, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely any hon. Member is allowed to rise to seek to catch your eye—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Alison.

Mr. Alison: I merely wanted to say to the Minister that I am capable of repeating my arguments in order to gain a further response from him. I am capable of doing so without being in the least tedious or repetitious if that is what he wants. I am willing to repeat my arguments to make certain that he has taken them on board. If he prefers me not to repeat the arguments again, I hope that he will be kind and courteous enough to deal with the two matters briefly so that we can reach a decision on whether to vote for the amendment. At present we do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be able to help us in another place. We do not know what he will be able to do about Amendment (b) to Amendment No. 20 to which I have specifically referred. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond briefly so that we can get on with the Bill, otherwise I am bound to take up these matters again.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Of course I am willing to deal with the points that have been raised. I was not aware that I had finished speaking at an earlier stage. I assumed that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) was making one of his lengthy interventions. If he makes a check I think he will find that I had not finished. It has always been my intention to deal with these matters.
If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back he will recall that it was the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) who moved the amendment. Naturally, I have not had an opportunity to reply to it as I have not yet replied. However, I am about to do just that.
It is true that in our discussions in Committee there was general agreement that time should not be wasted on a complaint which did not justify pursuit either by the police or by the board. Equally, it was apparent that there was room for dispute as to which complaints came into the category of trivial, frivolous or vexatious, not to mention that classic phrase "the idiotic". For that reason we believe that such complaints must be referred to the board and it must not be left to the police alone to decide whether to pursue them. That is the point that I made in Committee.
7.15 p.m.
On the other hand, as I said in Committee, we are concerned that there should be no waste of time or effort. It is the Government's view that an investigation under Section 49 may and should be as extensive as, and only as extensive as, the nature of the complaint justifies. However, in the sort of case to which the hon. Member for Barkston Ash has referred, there must be some preliminary investigation to decide that a complaint is trivial. Most policemen would agree that it is not always possible to ascertain from a statement or record of a complaint how serious or trivial it may be. That is an argument that I put forward in Committee and is not a new point. A matter which may appear frivolous may, upon investigation, prove to have extremely serious implications. That is the purpose of the investigation, and that is what the police are skilled in doing. That is why we respect their investigative powers.
It is equally true that a few preliminary inquiries may show that a complaint is


a matter of extreme triviality. In that case, I see no reason under the provisions of Section 49, or under the Bill, why the investigating officer should not pursue his inquiries only so far as is necessary to establish the triviality of the complaint. He would then produce a report on what he had discovered. On receipt of such a report the chief officer would send it to the board for its agreement that the matter had been satisfactorily handled. It would be open to the board to seek more information from the police if it felt that the case had not been properly handled. We regard that as an essential safeguard, but in the majority of cases we expect the board to endorse the view of the investigating officer and the deputy chief constable.
As I have said, there is no difference of principle. But in our view we cannot, as the amendment seeks to do, preclude all investigation of a trivial complaint. It is the investigation, however brief it may be, which establishes whether a matter is trivial. Nevertheless, we agree that the investigation in such a case should be no more extensive than the complaint merits. We shall draw the attention of chief officers to these matters in the guidance that we issue.
It could well be that in the light of experience some trivial or vexatious complaints would lend themselves to a more objective classification. Regulations under Clause 5(1) could provide for them to be treated in the same way as anonymous or repetitive complaints. The board would still need to agree that a complaint was one that fell within the prescribed class, but the procedure envisaged in these special cases would save a great deal of time both for the police and the board.

Mr. Stonehouse: Before the Minister sits down—

Mr. Davidson: No. I have dealt with these matters at great length and I have given way repeatedly. I have answered the matters that have been raised, and in all the circumstances, though I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member for Barkston Ash is seeking to do by way of the amendment, there is no difference of principle involved. I ask the House to resist the amendment on the ground that it is unnecessary.

Mr. Stonehouse: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was under the impression that the Minister had sat down.

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridleyrose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) wishes to do. He has already addressed the House once.

Mr. Ridley: I am seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unless the House gives leave—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]—the hon. Gentleman has no right to address the House on a second occasion. Amendment proposed—

Mr. Douglas-Mann: Mr. Douglas-Mannrose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman had made a fairly substantial contribution to the debate. If he has the permission of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"] It seems that the House has a very definite view on the subject.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am only seeking—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendment proposed—

Mr. Alison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With great deference to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must point out that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) has not yet spoken in this debate once.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a little difficult to differentiate between a speech and a fairly lengthy intervention. I was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman had made an intervention on more than one occasion. I am also under the impression that the House is of a view that it would like to get on with the business.

Mr. Ridley: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely the House cannot be interpreted as the group of tricoteurs below the Gangway. Also, surely—[Interruption.]—only those in the House should be allowed to object to leave being granted.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As long as one hon. Member objects to the proposal that


the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) should have permission to address the House—

Hon. Members: Who is he?

Mr. Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it a rule of the House that a very brief intervention—it was clearly an intervention as it consisted of about two sentences—can be counted as a speech prohibiting a Member from speaking subsequently? I wish to make a short speech because I wish to evoke a response from the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). The hon. Gentleman's amendment does not make sense, and I wish to clarify that point. I believe that it is in order for an hon. Member to make an intervention in another Member's speech and still speak himself, and I have made only one intervention.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: My difficulty is in defining an "intervention". Rightly or wrongly, my impression was that the hon. Gentleman had done more than make an intervention. In those circumstances, I do not think that it will be doing him any harm if I put the Question.

Mr. Sims: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) simply intervened in the Home Secretary's remarks very briefly, and the matter that we are now discussing is one in which the hon. Gentleman was very much involved in Committee. He has not yet had an opportunity to address the House on this matter, although in Committee he and his colleagues voted on the same side as the Opposition.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the circumstances, if the hon. Member has made only a brief intervention, my impression was wrong. I call the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that if you examine the record tomorrow you will find that what I have asserted is correct.
My point relates to Amendment (b) to Government Amendment No. 20. With respect to the hon. Member for Barkston

Ash (Mr. Alison), Amendment (b) does not make sense. I am not saying that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has not answered the hon. Gentleman's last intervention adequately. I am saying that he has not answered it adequately yet again. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this matter. If Amendment (b) were carried, would it not have the effect that where a case was under investigation by the Director of Public Prosecutions, the copy would have to go to the police officer complained against, because that investigation would still be carrying on for a three-month period, or whatever it is, and a report must go to the board even though the complaint is still under investigation.
The amendment is in the wrong place. The appropriate place would be in subsection (1). I sincerely trust that the hon. Member will not press the matter to a Division.

Mr. Alison: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite taken the point that the police regulations lay down,
He must send to the Director of Public Prosecutions a report of an investigation into a complaint.
References to the DPP imply that an investigation has been completed. Furthermore, there can be no reference to the board under the relevant subsection (2) until the conclusion has been reached whether it is a DPP case. Therefore, whatever happens in relation to the board, it must have been in the context of a completed investigation.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: This is the sort of dispute that is unlikely to be resolved across the Floor of the House. It is a pity. I am sure that I am right in this matter, as I was in my contention with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that a police officer was alerted to the fact that a possible criminal offence was being investigated. It would be quite crazy for the Opposition to press that matter to a Division.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 2, line 6, after 'police)', insert:
'or a preliminary report that the complaint was trivial or vexatious and not worth pursuing by investigation '.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Division No. 158.]
AYES
[7.25 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Onslow, Cranley


Aitken, Jonathan
Gray, Hamish
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Alison, Michael
Grieve, Percy
Osborn, John


Arnold, Tom
Grist, Ian
Page, John (Harrow West)


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Grylls, Michael
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Awdry, Daniel
Hall, Sir John
Pardoe, John


Banks, Robert
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pattie, Geoffrey


Beith, A. J.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Penhaligon, David


Bell, Ronald
Hampson, Dr Keith
Percival, Ian


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hannam, John
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Berry, Hon Anthony
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, Rt Hon James


Biggs-Davison, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Blaker, Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Body, Richard
Hicks, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Higgins, Terence L.
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bottomley, Peter
Hordern, Peter
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Braine, Sir Bernard
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Rifkind, Malcolm


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hunt, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hurd, Douglas
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
James, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Budgen, Nick
Jessel, Toby
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Bulmer, Esmond
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Sainsbury, Tim


Burden, F. A.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Scott, Nicholas


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Carlisle, Mark
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Shepherd, Colin


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shersby, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Silvester, Fred


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Sims, Roger


Cockcroft, John
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sinclair, Sir George


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cope, John
Lane, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Cordle, John H.
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Speed, Keith


Corrie, John
Lawrence, Ivan
Spence, John


Costain, A. P.
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Crawford, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Ian
Sproat, Iain


Crouch, David
Loveridge, John
Stainton, Keith


Crowder, F. P.
Luce, Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stanley, John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
McCrindle, Robert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacGregor, John
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Drayson, Burnaby
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stokes, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Madel, David
Stonehouse, Rt Hon John


Durant, Tony
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Dykes, Hugh
Marten, Neil
Tapsell, Peter


Emery, Peter
Mates, Michael
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Eyre, Reginald
Mather, Carol
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Maude, Angus
Tebbit, Norman


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mawby, Ray
Temple-Morris, Peter


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mayhew, Patrick
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Forman, Nigel
Mills, Peter
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Miscampbell, Norman
Viggers, Peter


Fox, Marcus
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Moate, Roger
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Freud, Clement
Monro, Hector
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Fry, Peter
Montgomery, Fergus
Walters, Dennis


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Weatherill, Bernard


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Morgan, Geraint
Wells, John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wiggin, Jerry


Glyn, Dr Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mudd, David
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hon George


Goodhew, Victor
Nelson, Anthony



Goodlad, Alastair
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Normanton, Tom
Mr. W. Benyon

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Nott, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant.

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 290.

NOES


Abse, Leo
Evans, John (Newton)
McNamara, Kevin


Allaun, Frank
Ewing Harry (Stirling)
Madden, Max


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew
Magee, Bryan


Archer, Peter
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mahon, Simon


Armstrong, Ernest
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Ashley, Jack
Flannery, Martin
Marks, Kenneth


Ashton, Joe
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Atkinson, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Forrester, John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Meacher, Michael


Bates, Alf
Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bean, R. E.
George, Bruce
Mendelson, John


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Gilbert, Dr John
Mikardo, Ian


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, John
Millan, Bruce


Bishop, E. S.
Gould, Bryan
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Boardman, H.
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Grant, John (Islington C)
Molloy, William


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Bradley, Tom
Hardy, Peter
Moyle, Roland


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Newens, Stanley


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Noble, Mike


Buchan, Norman
Hatton, Frank
Oakes, Gordon


Buchanan, Richard
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Ogden, Eric


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hooley, Frank
Orbach, Maurice


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Horam, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Campbell, Ian
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Ovenden, John


Canavan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Padley, Walter


Cant, R. B.
Huckfield, Les
palmer, Arthur


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Park, George


Carter, Ray
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Parker, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parry, Robert


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pavitt, Laurie


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Clemitson, Ivor
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Pendry, Tom


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Perry, Ernest


Cohen, Stanley
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoin)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Conlan, Bernard
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Price, William (Rugby)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Radice, Giles


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
John, Brynmor
Richardson, Miss Jo


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cronin, John
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
 Kaufman, Gerald
 Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dalyell, Tam
Kerr, Russell
Rooker, J. W.


Davidson, Arthur
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roper, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Paul B.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Lambie, David
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lamborn, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Deakins, Eric
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Sedgemore, Brian


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lee, John
Selby, Harry


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dormand, J, D.
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Litterick, Tom
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunn, James A.
Loyden, Eddie
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunnett, Jack
Luard, Evan
Silverman, Julius


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Small, William


Edge, Geoff
McCartney, Hugh
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McElhone, Frank
Snape, Peter


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Spearing, Nigel


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stallard, A. W.


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stott, Roger


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.







Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Swain, Thomas
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Ward, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Watkins, David
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Watkinson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Weetch, Ken
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Weitzman, David
Woodall, Alec


Tierney, Sydney
Wellbeloved, James
Woof, Robert


Tinn, James
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Tomlinson, John
White, James (Pollok)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Tomney, Frank
Whitehead, Phillip



Torney, Tom
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Urwin, T. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. Ted Graham.and

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. David stoddart.


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 2, line 8, after 'subsection (2)', insert:
'and section (Complaints that may involve criminal proceedings)'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in line 8, after 'below', insert:
'send to the complainant in question, and if so requested by the complainant'.
The effect of this important amendment would be to introduce what we regard as a fundamental improvement in the Bill. It would provide the opportunity for the complainant, the aggrieved citizen, to have a key rôle in triggering off the complaints machinery.
The machinery for remitting complaints to the Police Complaints Board is provided in subsection (1)(a) and (b), and further in subsection (2). This procedure would, if the amendment were accepted, be subject to the veto, as it were, of the aggrieved person who originally made the complaint. In the first instance he would receive the report of the investigation and would himself decide whether, in his view, it merited further investigation by the secondary review body, the Police Complaints Board.
It may seem a little clumsy that we should require that the chief officer should send to the complainant the items set out in Clause 2(1)(a) and (b), for in any case, as I understand the position, the complainant would receive quite a lot of information automatically, because he would be told whether a disciplinary charge was to be levelled. He would in practice have the opportunity—as has been the case in the past—to attend disciplinary hearings. I do not dispute that if our amendment is accepted it may be desirable at a later stage in the progress of the Bill to refine and to limit the amount of information that is to be sent to the complainant under the subsection.

It would obviously not be necessary for a memorandum about the full range of material set out in paragraph (b)(i) (ii) and (iii) to be sent to the individual complainant, but he should receive enough to enable him to decide whether or not he himself was confident that the matter had been properly investigated, and whether or not he wanted the police complaints machinery to be brought into action on his behalf.
We do not pretend that this is a perfect watertight amendment as it stands. It is a paving amendment which, if accepted in principle, the Government would have no difficulty in tailoring into the broad procedures proposed under the Bill. I would argue the merits, as we see them, of introducing the principle that seems to be almost inherent in any rational complaints machinery, which is that if the complainant, the aggrieved citizen, the man or woman, feels that there is something fishy about the way in which the complaint has been handled, or about the relations between himself or herself with a particular police constable, that individual should have a direct and primary rôle in triggering off the whole machinery of investigation into his complaint.
It sounds obvious and sensible enough, when one sets out the principle, that a chap on whose behalf and in respect of whose misgivings the Police Complaints Board will be set up should have a primary role in setting the machinery in motion. I do not think that, in priciple, many people would be prepared to dispute that it was extremely rational and sensible that this should be the case.
We are, after all, dealing with a police complaints Bill, that is to say, a Bill designed to set up machinery to see that not only is justice done but is seen to be done in relation to a specific registered complaint in a book kept at the police


station and registered and placed on paper in the context of a named identifiable citizen who has made the complaint. That is what we are dealing with. We are not dealing with the provision of a kind of broad supervisory machinery, set up to ensure that some kind of generalised set of regulations or standards is maintained, irrespective of whether or not they could be in breach at any particular moment.
We are not trying to set up a sort of inspectorate of schools' equivalent, an HMI equivalent, or a hospital advisory services' equivalent—bodies whose broad function is to exercise a continuous, albeit bureaucratic, surveillance over a particular field. They are not necessarily triggered off, or activated, by something having gone wrong. Their responsibility is keeping a general eye on things. We are concerned with a Police Complaints Board and a situation in which something in the name of an individual aggrieved citizen has been registered as having gone wrong. That is what this is all about. We are not concerned with a sort of general inspectorate. We are, in principle, dealing with a scheme that must be closer to the Ombudsman concept in philosophy, that is, a body set up to deal with a specific complaint by a particular individual about which he or she is quite conscious.
Can anything be more ludicrous, if we follow the Ombudsman analogy, than that the Ombudsman procedure cannot be triggered off by the complaint of a particular aggrieved citizen, but only by a hit of the bureaucracy? What would happen if Sir Idwal Pugh had his remit drawn in such a way that he could not receive any complaint from the individual but had a duty to look at every conceivable sort of eventuality that might give rise to a complaint by an individual citizen? It would mean he had to spend a great deal of time poring over the Government books but he could not be activated or triggered off by an individual citizen.
7.45 p.m.
This would be ludicrous in respect of the Ombudsman. He sits back waiting for the chap who has been the victim of maladministration to come and tell him what it was. This must be the rationale

of a complaints procedure based upon a specific complaint, yet it is precisely this that we are deprived of by the Bill. We are providing for a bit of machinery which can be activated only by the bureaucracy and which explicitly and deliberately disbars any triggering off by the individual complainant.
It is almost unbelievable that we should have devised such a piece of machinery, but we have. We have set tip a bit of machinery the avowed purpose and aim of which is to reassure public opinion about the way in which a particular complaint is handled and to ensure, in the Home Secretary's often reiterated phrase, that "justice is seen to be done". Yet the Government bring forward a procedure, set out in Clauses 2 and 3, which places arbitrary powers in the hands of the bureaucracy to decide which complaint needs a detailed scrutiny investigation and which should be made subject to a tribunal, and to which particular complaint a disciplinary charge should be preferred. All of these are subject to arbitrary bureaucratic discretion without any reference at all to what an individual complainant may think.
The Bill is reprehensible and seriously at fault above all in this respect, that the very machinery which the Government are bringing forward to try to show people that justice is seen to be done will have exactly the reverse effect. By depriving the individual citizen of direct access to it, and by making it impossible for the individual citizen to be the prime mover of the whole system going into operation, I think that this will lead to a situation in which the complainant may smell a rat even more than he would under the existing set-up.
I hope the Minister will take this important point: I shall presently refer to some correspondence that I have had with her. She is always courteous in elaborating on the views of the Government in relation to correspondence. I think the Bill, as now drafted, may give rise to more misgivings and a greater public sense that justice is not done and has not been seen to be done. It is in that context that I am speaking. The hon. Lady will agree that where disciplinary charges are preferred in respect of a complaint this is not likely to be an area in which there will be wide public


misgiving, because there is already provision—and as far as I know there is no intention of cancelling it—for the complainant to attend the disciplinary hearing. It is an existing police procedure that where disciplinary charges are preferred the citizen can hear the case himself or herself and, indeed, can give evidence and ask questions, and can be represented.
The bureaucratic machinery that we are setting up will neither improve nor detract from the sense of the individual complainant that his case has been properly looked into. Where disciplinary charges are preferred, not only do complainants feel that they have some sort of responsibility for their complaint; they can actually attend the hearing of it. We do not advance by one iota any of the existing benefits accruing to the citizen by what we are providing in this machinery.
The key situation, however, is that in which disciplinary charges are not to be preferred. Here I come to an important piece of evidence given to me by the Metropolitan Police and the hon. Lady. Just to give an illustration of the range of cases in which disciplinary charges will not be preferred, let me remind the House that, in the last set of statistics made available by the Metropolitan Police, for the year 1975, there were 2,500-odd non-DPP cases, of which only 55—or 2 per cent.—resulted in disciplinary charges being preferred. That means that 98 per cent. of cases that will be within the ambit of the board—

Mr. Douglas-Mann: We did not have the Bill then.

Mr. Alison: Let me finish the point. That means that 98 per cent. of the cases that will be within the board's ambit are cases in which no disciplinary charges had been preferred under the old regime. I took this point up in Committee, and the hon. Lady was kind enough to write to me about it. Her letter is dated March 1976—uncharacteristically, she forgot to be more precise—and is therefore still fairly close to the period covered by the proceedings on the Bill. I hope that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) will note what his hon. Friend said in that letter, because I think that it will fill him with profound misgivings.
The hon. Lady wrote:
We should be surprised if it is other than rarely that the Board's review of complaint cases will result in disciplinary charges being brought when the police have decided against this.
If the existing number of instances in which the police decide to bring charges in non-DPP cases is as low as 2 per cent., the chances are that the "rarely" in the hon. Lady's letter may raise it to 10 per cent., 15 per cent. or even 20 per cent. But that still means that 80 per cent. of cases over which the complainant has any sort of leverage on the board, first, will not be made subject to disciplinary charges and, secondly, will be cases in which the complainant will have no means of scrutinising the basis for the board's decision or being able to reverse it.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: The hon. Gentleman is disproving his own case. The reason that it will only rarely be necessary for the board to intervene is that, with the knowledge that every case is being scrutinised, there will be very few cases in which the chief officer will make a wrong decision. When only a tiny minority of cases is referred to the board, the scope for decisions that will not stand up to scrutiny will be much greater.

Mr. Alison: We are talking about the principle—this is the whole justification of the board—of justice being seen to be done. We are talking about what will happen to the individual who is absolutely persuaded that evidence could have been produced in his case and disciplinary charges should have been preferred, who has a profound sense of personal injustice and a real sense of grievance and looks to the board to ensure that his case is singled out? He has no access, no means of triggering the process and getting his complaint to the board.
All that will happen is that the board will give the same sort of generalised, non-specific, unargued response to a mass of complaints that the police already give but with the vast disadvantage of a massive bureaucratic machine churning these cases backwards and forwards between the police and the board, with exactly the same result, that the board will rarely overthrow the basic decision made by the police. We all know why it will not: there is no evidence; they


are unsubstantiated cases. That is the whole nonsense of this proposal.
Will this provision really secure that justice will be seen to be done? Of course it will not. The individual complainant will be just as disgruntled that he has no means of securing that his complaint is considered with particular care and attention—which would be the case if the Ombudsman dealt with the matter—as he would be under the old machinery. Since it is rare that the police decision will be overthrown, it is ludicrous to suggest that we are making a great leap forward in reassuring the public by this kind of complaints machinery. In fact, it will make the situation worse; the public will smell even more of a rat than they do already, because the Government are determined to lock up the whole thing in that very official body—the police or the Board—which they have reason to mistrust, as they think. That is the exact reverse of what would happen under the Ombudsman.
But in order fully to savour the extent of the Government's perversity in their absolute insistence on sticking to the bureaucratic method and not having a complainant-activated method, I want to bring to the attention of the House the raison d'être of the Government's philosophy. It would be difficult to conceive of a more typically Socialist, paternalistic, "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best" kind of ministerial pronouncement than that which I have now to lay before the House.
This is the hon. Lady writing to me again. This time she has had the courtesy to put the date on the letter—11th May. This is why, she says, a complainant-activated machinery is unsuitable in this field:
Persistence on the part of a complainant does not necessarily correspond to the gravity of his complaint or its justification and we do not accept that all the more serious or justified complaints would necessarily be put to the Board under a complainant-activated scheme. We do not therefore think that a complainant-activated scheme would fulfil the main aims that the Government have in mind in introducing the new procedure.
Is that not marvellous? Someone can make a complaint, but he cannot be trusted to understand its full import and significance. Once a complaint has been made, so sensational is this initiative that

this precious jewel must be wrested from his hands and handed over to the bureaucratic machinery, to make sure that it is properly evaluated.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that throughout the Committee stage and earlier it has been part of the Opposition case that we must have as good a method as possible of getting rid of or winnowing out the frivolous complaint? The kind of complainant activation that he is talking about will make it more difficult to treat these complaints as they should be treated.

Mr. Alison: I do not accept that for one minute. The complainant-activated machinery will be one in which, under the proposals that we have advanced and debated extensively and in the proposals that we put forward in Committee, a whole range of opportunities for communication between the police and the complainant would be introduced in an Ombudsman scheme, so a great deal of clearing out and clarification of purposes between the complainant and the police would be practicable. In this alternative scheme, a whole range of opportunities for informal disposal of the complaint would be available before the bureaucratic machinery was produced and the police had to send papers across the road at 10p a time to the bureaucratic board.
We believe that a complainant-activated machinery would have exactly the effect of isolating the cases, which must be the most important ones, which the complainants feel are serious and in which they have been let down. The Government's view is that once he has made a complaint, the complainant cannot be trusted to see it through, that the matter must be taken out of his hands in case he has uncovered something which is too important to be left to him.
Complaints against the police, in the Government's eyes, are too important to be left to the complainant. That is the prima facie attitude in the hon. Lady's letter. But the almost unbelievable perverseness of the Government is that, although they will not allow the complainant to activate the whole machinery, they will allow him to deactivate it. That is a staggering anomaly. There is a provision for a withdrawn complaint to have the effect of arresting the machinery.
In her letter, the hon. Lady said:
In the second situation—a withdrawn complaint—the Board would still see the papers under the provisions of clause 2 unless a provision were made to the contrary. We do not believe, however, that the Board would have any useful function to perform if a complaint were withdrawn. That is why clause 5(1)(e) is in the Bill so that regulations may be made dispensing with any requirements under Section 49 or with the need to refer to the Board where complaints are withdrawn".
The Government have tabled an amendment to put into Clause 2 to the effect that if a complainant withdraws his complaint the machinery lapses and does not roll. So, while the Government will not accept the principle that a complainant should have the right to decide whether his complaint should go to further investigation, they accept that he should have the right to stop the machinery running, which surely undermines the first principle. The Government accept that if a complainant lacks persistence and says that he wants to withdraw his complaint, the whole of the machinery can be deactivated by his absolute right to withdraw his complaint.
In effect, the Government are saying that the citizen must not be allowed to put the ignition key into the fire engine because he may fail to spot an important fire, and that the key must always be put into the fire engine by the bureaucracy. But they add that they will allow the citizen carte blanche to take the ignition key out if he wants to do so, whatever the risks of the fire. That is a ludicrous, perverse and contradictory principle. The Government are saying that they cannot trust the persistence of a complainant, but must have a bureaucratically-operated machinery which will allow the complainant to stop the machinery if he is lacking in persistence.
Our amendment, which would introduce the ability of a complainant to activate the machinery, is much more consistent than the Government's own approach. We believe that the complainant should be allowed the initiative and the positive rôle of activating the machinery, as well as the rôle of deactivating it. That is much more in correspondence with the aim of giving the individual citizen the sense that his complaint is being dealt with if he feels personally aggrieved. If, as is alleged, the public have the sense that justice is not always

being done, and the Government want justice to be seen to be done, in order to avoid the vague miasma of uncertainty about the citizen's individual rôle the Government should accept our amendment, at least in principle, so that the Bill will provide what, we are told, the individual citizen really wants.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I appreciate that if it is the intention of the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) to keep the House sitting all night, it is necessary for him to be prolix, but it is not necessary for him to be disingenuous. In the circumstance, he is being disingenuous. As he knows, a number of us on this side who served in Committee on the Bill felt that a complainant-activated procedure, although it would have some disadvantages, would be worth while because it could be traded against far greater powers for the board, if the cases which the board were considering were restricted to those in which the complainant had activated the machinery.
If the hon. Gentleman had wanted a procedure of that kind, he had his opportunity on 16th March, when a sufficient number of my hon. Friends would have been prepared to vote against Clause 3 with a view to substituting a more effective procedure. But to introduce, at this late stage, when the structure of the Bill does not accord with it, an attempt to emasculate the essential provisions of the Bill is disingenuous. I believe that in my intervention in his speech I demonstrated the fundamental fallacy of his argument.
The reason why the Bill will work reasonably satisfactorily is that there will be a knowledge on the part of the officer dealing with an investigation that someone is looking over his shoulder. I know that such an officer will not like it, but someone else will be looking at the papers eventually and considering whether he has done all that he should have done. I appreciate that this will mean a vast number of cases going to the board and that not all of them will be looked at as they should be, but there will be that knowledge in the investigating officer that the papers will be looked at later.
Although I think that there could be copensating advantages in a complainant-activated procedure, the method offered by the Opposition amendment has none. In a great many cases, the complainant


who has had his complaint investigated will decide, although he knows that it was justified, that nothing further can be done, knowing that for lack of evidence the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided not to institute proceedings or the chief officer has decided not to take disciplinary action. In such circumstances, a considerable number of complainants will say "To hell with it", and will not pursue the matter further, even though it should be referred to the Police Complaints Board.
The hon. Gentleman's reasoning would have been justified if the Bill had contained the wider powers which might have been substituted in place of Clause 3 in Committee, but he and his hon. Friends chickened out. They were not prepared then to seek a fundamental amendment. Now, they merely propose an amendment to emasculate the present provision.
The Bill has its merits. It is not as good as I would have liked it to be, but, all in all, I think that it will work reasonably well and perhaps pave the way for a more satisfactory Bill at a later date. To accept an amendment of this kind, which I think the hon. Gentleman proposed with tongue in cheek, would destroy much of the merit of the Bill, and I trust that even he will not wish to press it after he has seriously considered it again.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: This clause is one of the most absurd provisions of the Bill. It must have been conceived by people with little experience or knowledge of the workings of the minds of people who repeatedly come before our courts.
Even this Government would concede a law to be bad which would provide for the wasting of the time of police officers concerned in this complaints procedure, as well as that of the civil servants involved. Even this Government would consider a law to be bad whereby money was spent and time wasted unnecessarily. Even this Government would consider it a bad law which would perpetuate the worry and distress—which should not be just brushed away as of little importance—to police officers, their wives and their families by a procedure which drags on a complaint which in the end is either found to be unjustified or which nobody has any heart to pursue.
It is because the clause is likely to result in all of those features that it is utterly and completely objectionable to me. It seems to me absurd, because its consequences are likely to be so extremely and unnecessarily harmful.
I say that because in my experience, which I must again say has been of 14 years' daily practice in the criminal courts, one so often starts with a complaint against the police pursued in anger and fervour by a defendant which in time miraculously disappears.
I should like the Minister to tell us how many complaints which are originally registered are not proceeded with in the end by complainants over a reasonable number of years. If as I suspect from my experience the number is considerable, that adds strength to the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison).
There are a number of reasons why defendants change their mind in time. It may be that they originally raised a complaint against the police only because they believed that it would strengthen their defence. It may be that they thought that if they made a counter-allegation against the police it would underline the possible truth of their defence. It may be that they thought that if they made a counter-allegation against the police some juryman would think that there was more to the matter than met the eye and would take the view that, after all, if the defendant had actually gone so far as to complain about police behaviour through police channels there was probably some reason for so doing. If there was reason for doing that, then although the matter had not yet been proved to be true there was "no smoke without fire" and the police could not be completely relied upon or trusted.
However, in due course when the case is concluded—when the defendant is either convicted or acquitted— it is miraculous how the enthusiasm for complaining against the behaviour of the police in the case seems to evaporate. It may even be in many cases that a possible cause for complaint exists which has been exaggerated in importance in the early stages of the case in the complainant's mind when he feels persecuted, and in due time, as matters progress,


the soreness—the sensitivity about what has happened—begins to disappear and a more common sense approach satisfies him that his first reaction had been exaggerated.
I cannot conceive that anybody who has had experience of dealing with clients in these circumstances, as I would expect the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) as a practising solicitor to have had experience—I am surprised that he opposes the amendment—would think that the clause will do anything other than proliferate the number of complaints and the hardship that goes therewith.
8.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) suggested in an intervention that it was important for us to winnow out frivolous complaints at the earliest stages. What more sensible way of winnowing out frivolous complaints could there be, applying common sense to these matters, than to say as it were to the complainant, "Do you really feel so strongly about this matter that you wish to pursue it through all its ramifications?", thus allowing him to decide that it was not a matter that he considered necessary to pursue?
I shall await with interest the Minister's answer, but I believe that a high proportion of matters which start off as complaints disappear in the fulness of time, and that adds strength to the point I make in commenting upon the intervention of the hon. Member for Derby, North.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden accused my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash of being disingenuous. It is I think he who is ingenuous. The hon. Gentleman seems to consider that there is something more worth while in this clause as it stands which, if it is left, will advance the purpose which the Bill encapsulates. I do not follow that. Nor do I follow his argument that the Bill would be emasculated if we removed that offensive element in the clause by accepting the amendment.
Surely the object of the exercise is to reassure the public and to let them feel that the police are not covering up for the misbehaviour of their members. The object of the exercise is to secure

that an independent element is introduced so that there is no opportunity for injustice to continue.
I cannot see how that objective behind the Bill—and it is a spirit that I support, although for reasons which I will not go into on the amendment I think that the Bill is a dog's dinner—is interfered with by saying to the public—"You can have the reassurance of knowing that the person who complained does not now wish to pursue the complaint. That in other words, the complaint has no justification", or "The complaint has so little justification that the person who originally felt aggrieved no longer wishes to pursue it".
If we sought the common sense reaction of ordinary people we should learn that they would be satisfied by knowing that the person who is most closely affected and who has the most reason to be aggrieved has considered the matter and decided that he has no grievance worth pursuing. That would satisfy any ordinary member of the public and it would have the advantage of saving a vast amount of time, trouble and distress. It is very much a matter of common sense and surely there must be some limit to the absurdities of this Bill and the way in which its various clauses are put together. Anybody sitting down and studying the Bill's provisions and seeing the clause unamended some distance ahead from now, when the dust has settled, will ask himself whether we were out of our minds in allowing such a provision to go through.
I commend my hon. Friends for their foresight, perseverance and persistence in pursuing a common sense matter. But I am puzzled that so many Labour Members who in many other matters concerned with law and order manifest a substantial amount of common sense, cannot see the mischief in allowing the clause to pass unamended.

Dr. Summerskill: After a Committee stage that lasted for 21 sittings, I cannot pretend that I have not heard the speech made by the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) before, and it will not be the first time that he has heard what I am about to say.
We both recognise that by this amendment the hon. Member has brought into


focus a major difference of policy between the Government and the Opposition on the nature of the independent element to be introduced into the present procedures for dealing with complaints against the police. Broadly speaking, the amendment points to a complainant-activated scheme, whereas the Bill sets out to provide a comprehensive review of all complaints, subject to certain exceptions defined either in the Bill or in Regulations to be made under it.
We have carefully considered whether the new scheme should be limited to complaints in respect of which the complainants themselves ask that they should be referred for consideration to an independent body, if only because we are anxious that any additional burden of work falling on the police should be kept to a minimum. If a complainant is apparently satisfied with the way in which his complaint has been dealt with by the police, we recognise the force of the argument that there seems to be no reason why it should be examined by an independent body.
But the arguments that have been adduced in favour of complainant activation have overlooked an important principle—namely, that a new procedure must not only satisfy so far as possible the individual complainant, but must also meet the more general public concern that there should be some independent element in the handling of complaints against the police to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done. Persistence by a complainant does not necessarily correspond to the gravity of his complaint, or its justification, and we do not accept that all the more serious or justified complaints would necessarily be put to the board under a complainant-activated scheme. We do not therefore think that a complainant-activated scheme would fulfil the main aims that the Government had in mind in introducing the new procedure.
I shall now refer to two specific questions which were asked by hon. Members.

Mr. Lawrence: Mr. Lawrencerose—

Dr. Summerskill: I want to refer to hon. Members' questions if the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) will allow me. An average of one-quarter

of complaints received are not proceeded with.
The hon. Member for Barkston Ash made a fallacious assumption. It is not true that the board will be able to select arbitrarily cases that must be examined. It will have to examine all cases referred to it under Clause 2(1).

Mr. Alison: I am trying to follow the logic of the Minister's argument. The doctrine of persistence, the bureaucratic merits of persistence—the point contained in the leter which I read to the House—seems to be challenged by the principle of a total right of withdrawal which the hon. Lady has conceded. Why undermine the logic of persistence of the board with the absolute right of the complainant to withdraw?

Dr. Summerskill: Persistence does not necessarily correspond to the gravity of the complaint. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that the Government are trying to dissuade a complainant from persisting with a complaint. A complainant can press a chief officer as many times as he likes until the matter is settled. Many complainants might have a genuine case which deserves review but for various reasons a complainant may not wish to trouble the Ombudsman through the board. Under the Government's scheme the board will adopt an approach which ensures, on behalf of all complainants, that justice is seen to be done.

Mr. Lawrence: I follow what the hon. Lady is saying about the need to reasure the public. She has said that that reassurance would go if the complainant were allowed to activate a complaint. But surely the logic of that belief should extend to the situation in which a complainant is allowed to withdraw the complaint. Why is a complainant to be allowed to withdraw a complaint? That would not necessarily satisfy the public in its need for reassurance that a complaint is properly investigated. Yet the complainant is not allowed to activate the complaint. The two situations are as one and the same principle must be applied to activation as to withdrawal. If not, the Government must introduce an amendment to prevent the complainant from withdrawing a complaint.

Dr. Summerskill: Initiating a complaint and pursuing it, and the requirement by the general public and the complainant that the complaint is satisfactorily looked into, are more important than the withdrawal of the complaint. The withdrawal of the complaint is initiated by the complainant.
The Bill's purpose is to see that there is an independent element in the examination of a complaint. It seems to me that the emphasis should be upon that. That is how the Bill is formulated.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady is dodging the question. She is saying that the machinery for activation cannot be left in the hands of a complainant, because he may make a complaint which, in the Government's view, is so serious that it should be investigated, whether or not he wants to refer it for investigation. Therefore, persistence is one of the qualities that the board possesses but that the public may not possess. The public must not be allowed to activate the machinery, but they may deactivate it. However important the board may think it that a particular case should be investigated, in the interests of reassuring the public, it is still in the gift of the complainant to withdraw the complaint and deactivate the procedure. The Government cannot have it both ways. They must be consistent.

8.30 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I disagree about the emphasis that there should be in the Bill, The primary purpose of the Bill is that in the investigation of a complaint there should be an independent element. That is what the Bill sets out to provide.
We accept that there are differing opinions on this issue of principle. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I could argue for two days about complainant activation. Apart from that issue, there would be considerable practical difficulties in incorporating the idea of complainant-activation into the Government's scheme without encountering serious opposition from the police organisations on the grounds of double jeopardy, which the hon. Gentleman did not mention in his opening speech. We have discussed this plan with the local authority associations and the police representative bodies.
In my letter of 11th May I informed the hon. Gentleman that the police were

particularly concerned about the risk of double jeopardy implicit in the hon. Member's plan. Even if the independent body would have no power to reverse any decisions already taken—for example, the decision not to prefer disciplinary charges—the fact that it would be able to comment adversely on the handling of a case might leave the police officer concerned under a cloud for the rest of his career.
Linked with the idea of complaint-activation is the proposal that the new body should have a kind of Ombudsman function—that is, it would be largely concerned with conducting an ex post facto review. As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement on the new scheme last July, I do not believe that it is sufficient to have such a review. What is needed is an independent element that comes into operation after the investigation has been completed but before the final decision on the disciplinary aspects of the case is taken, so that the independent body can influence the outcome, if necessary. We believe that the exercise of an active rôle of this kind in the public interest will serve to remove the general feeling of unease that, at present, the handling of the disciplinary aspects of complaints rests entirely with the police themselves.
I mentioned earlier that the amendment had certain other consequences. One is that the complainant would receive a copy of the investigating officer's report. This is not only unnecessary but undesirable. It would be wholly wrong for the complainant to receive information about police investigations which might well deal with matters going beyond the complaint itself or the results of investigations into criminal activities. Moreover, even if it were conceded that the complainant should receive confidential police information of this kind it would be hard to resist the suggestion that the police officer concerned should also receive the papers in the case, although the amendment does not propose this.
Another question which the amendment raises is why the chief officer should tell the complainant whether he thinks that any disciplinary charges should be heard before a disciplinary tribunal. If the complainant decided not to ask that the complaint be referred to the board, it is not clear how the board could be


asked to consider the need for a disciplinary tribunal. But I appreciate that those last two points are small compared with the point of principle which the amendment seeks to put into the Bill.
We discussed this for many hours in Committee. There appears to be no meeting place between the Opposition and the Government on this major point of principle. Both views are strongly held. I can only advise my hon. Friends to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Aitken: In an amazingly illogical speech the hon. Lady made one very logical and accurate point, that there is a major division of principle and belief between our two parties on this matter. That division can be summed up by saying that the Government believe that the gentleman in Whitehall knows best, whereas we believe that the individual knows best, certainly when it comes to deciding whether he wishes to crank into action the massive bureaucratic machinery of the Police Complaints Board on a complaint which he has started.
I do not know whether the hon. Lady and her ministerial colleagues follow the Top Twenty pop songs. If they do they may be aware that almost the best-selling record today is "I've Got A Brand New Combine Harvester" by a group called the Wurzels. It reminds me of the ministerial pronouncements we have heard in the debates on the Bill. Ministers are saying in effect that they have a wonderful new device, a brand new Police Com-plaints Board, which will automatically go combining its way through what are now estimated to be 25,000 complaints a year, hoping to harvest one or two important things in the public interest.
We very much doubt whether such a device is necessary, but we say that if we are to have one at least it should not operate automatically. Let it not be brought into operation at the whim of the bureaucracy. It is much better if it comes into operation at the desire of the complainant. That would save a great deal of unnecessary work for the board, a great deal of Civil Service time and manpower, and a great deal of public money. On those grounds alone, serious thought should be given to the benefits of a complainant-activated board.
I should like to say something about the costs, because we have been seriously deluded by the hon. Lady throughout the debates as to how much the board will cost the taxpayer. She has persistently said that it will cost no more than £300,000 a year.

Sir Bernard Braine: That is complete nonsense.

Mr. Aitken: As my hon. Friend characteristically remarks in a vigorous phrase, it is complete nonsense. However one does the sums, one reaches the conclusion that the board cannot cost less than £1 million to £2 million a year, and the figure may well be more.

Mr. Lawrence: If a quarter of the 25,000 complaints are not pursued—that is, the complainant does not think that pursuing them is justified—that comes to about 6,000. At even £50 per complaint, would not that amount to £300,000 in expense which could be saved?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend has a quicker head for figures than I. I am sure that he is absolutely right.
It is one of the nonsenses of the board that it goes on looking at complaints which are in the process of being withdrawn. On the hon. Lady's own estimates, each member of the board will be required to examine eight and a half complaints per day, which is a physical and mental impossibility, considering that some complaints run into many tens of pages, if not hundreds.
I have some interesting figures on some of the complaints handled in the past year by the Kent police, in whose area my constituency is. I asked them to give me the costs of two complaints, both of which I knew something about because they originated in my constituency. One I considered to be minor and the other to be major. The minor complaint cost £797 for the wages of the investigating officer alone. The major investigation has so far cost £15,981 of which £5,400 was spent on the transcripts of evidence and the photocopying.
All these costs will multiply when we have a nine-member board staffed by 30 civil servants. One sensible way of cutting down the work load and the number of civil servants involved, and of reducing the level of public expenditure


at a time when it is vital that public expenditure should be reduced, is to say that the machinery shall start only when a complainant really wishes it to start.
The hon. Lady has argued that the basic reason why she thinks it is so vitally necessary for the board not to be activated by a complainant is that although she recognises that the work of the police should be kept to the minimum, nevertheless she believes that it is for the public good that complaints should be looked at by the complaints board at the board's own whim and insistence because only the members of the board have the necessary persistence to study the complaints with the closeness which they deserve.
There is a great illogicality here, which was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) because, as he made clear, although a complainant is not allowed to activate this board, a complainant is allowed to deactivate it. Surely it is absolute nonsense to say that it is permissible for a complainant to press the "stop" button but it is not permissible for him to press the "start" button. It is an absolute and total illogicality in the hon. Lady's argument.
I should like to refer briefly to the speech by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) who said that our proposals would emasculate the Bill. That is not the purpose of these amendments, but it is our purpose to emasculate the work load, the public expenditure load and the Civil Service manpower involved. We believe that is a desirable and correct objective.
I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made a very sound point when he said that the whole clause had been drafted by those who had little knowledge of the minds of people who come before our courts. I can support what my hon. Friend said with some information supplied by the Kent police. I have a letter from a chief inspector of the Kent police whose main job is to deal with complaints. He wrote:
Over 65 per cent. of the complaints arose from situations where the police were detaining or had reported or interviewed alleged suspects

and where quite frankly in my experience the complaints were made in the hope that it might be a counter to prosecution.
I think that here we touch on what is a major weakness in this Bill. It can so easily become just an excuse for those who wish to use this complaints board as a new defence mechanism and as a defensive shield in the criminal troubles in which they may be involved.
My hon. Friend made a sound point when he drew attention to the number of defendants who change their minds about a complaint. He was quite correct. About a quarter change their minds after a quiet word with them about the absurdity of their complaints. We maintain that these people should have the right to say "We do not want this procedure to start ".
The hon. Lady spoke at length of general public concern about the introduction of the independent element into complaints against the police. Despite the many long hours we have all spent listening to these complaints in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I have yet to hear a scrap of evidence that large numbers of the public want a Police Complaints Board of this nature. I have yet to hear any sound and valid evidence to suggest that the public want to see between £1 million and £2 million of taxpayers' money spent on creating a mammoth bureaucratic empire to make it easier to complain against the police.
The hon. Lady made a speech in Bournemouth when she addressed a number of senior police officers and indicated that there would have to be financial stringency involved in restraining expenditure which the police quite rightly incur in their continuing war against crime. What an extraordinary sense of priorities whereby money is available to be spent on a board to enable complaints to be made against the police but is not to be available to enable the police to fight crime.
8.45 p.m.
One way of saving money and time would be to let the board be activated when the complainant wanted it to be. That would halve the work load, halve public expenditure and make Parliament's deliberations half as idiotic as they now are.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 289.

NOES


Abse, Leo
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mackintosh, John P.


Allaun, Frank
Evans John (Newton)
Maclennan, Robert


Anderson, Donald
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Archer, Peter
Faulds, Andrew
McNamara, Kevin


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Madden, Max


Ashley, Jack
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Magee, Bryan


Ashton, Joe
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mahon, Simon


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Flannery, Martin
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marks, Kenneth


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marquand, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Forrester, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bates, Alf
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Bean, R. E.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Freeson, Reginald
Meacher, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
George, Bruce
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bishop, E. S.
Gilbert, Dr John
Mendelson, John


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Mikardo, Ian


Boardman, H.
Gould, Bryan
Millan, Bruce


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Graham, Ted
Miller, Mrs Millie (Word N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Molloy, William


Bradley, Tom
Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Buchan, Norman
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Buchanan, Richard
Hattersley. Rt Hon Roy
Newens, Stanley


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Hatton, Frank
Noble, Mike


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Oakes, Gordon


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael


Canavan, Dennis
Horam, John
Orbach, Maurice


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Carmichael, Neil
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Ovenden, John


Carter, Ray
Huckfield, Les
Padley, Walter


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Palmer, Arthur


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Park, George


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parker, John


Clemitson, Ivor
Hughes, Roy (Nwport)
Parry, Robert


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie


Cohen, Stanley
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Coleman, Donald
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Perry, Ernest


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Conlan, Bernard
Janner, Greville
Prescott, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Corbett, Robin
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Price, William (Rugby)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Radice Giles


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cronin, John
John, Brynmor
Richardson, Miss Jo


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cryer, Bob
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts Gwilym (Cannock)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dalyell, Tam
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kelley, Richard
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kerr, Russell
Roper, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rose, Paul B.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Kinnock, Neil
Rose, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Deakins, Eric
Lambie, David
Rowlands, Ted


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry
Sandelson, Neville


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Selby, Harry


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Doig, Peter
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Dunn, James A.
Litterick, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunnett, Jack
Lomas, Kenneth
Silverman, Julius


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Eadie, Alex
Luard, Evan
Small, William


Edge, Geoff
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Snape, Peter


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
McCartney, Hugh
Spearing, Nigel


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Ennals, David
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Stoddart, David


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Stott, Roger







Strang, Gavin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Swain, Thomas
Ward, Michael
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Watkins, David
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Watkinson, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Weetch, Ken
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Weitzman, David
Woof, Robert


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wellbeloved, James
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Tierney, Sydney
White, Frank R. (Bury)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Tinn, James
White, James (Pollok)



Tomlinson, John
Whitehead, Phillip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Torney, Tom
Whitlock, William
Mr. James Hamilton and 


Urwin, T. W.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Mr. Tom Pendry.


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 2, line 10, leave out from 'complaint' to 'and' in line 11.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 11 in page 2, line 15, after 'the', insert 'matter or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take Government Amendments Nos. 13, 16 and 22.

Mr. Davidson: As the House knows, Clause 2(2)(a) gives effect to a particular feature of the new scheme, namely that the complaints board will not have to deal with a complaint
where disciplinary charges have been preferred in respect
of that complaint and the accused officer has admitted the charge. The only question remaining is the appropriate punishment for that officer and as this is a matter for the chief officer alone, the board will have no function to perform.
It was suggested in the debates in Committee that the Bill as it stands could enable the police to use this procedure to cover up a complaint. The accused officer could plead guilty to a relatively minor disciplinary offence when a more serious charge could and should have been brought, and the board could be kept in ignorance.
I do not accept that this sort of thing would happen or that bargains would be struck with policemen who had committed offences, but unless this amendment is accepted the suspicion that they could do so would remain.

Amendment agreed to.

9.0 p.m.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 12. in page 2, line 15, leave out 'and his reasons for, or for not, doing so'.
and insert
'and, if not, his reasons for not doing so '.
The amendment arises out of our consultations on the Bill. The requirement to give reasons for decisions to prefer charges does not appear to serve any useful purpose. The board will have no power to challenge such a decision by a chief officer and it should be evident from the charges themselves as well as from the accompanying documents why they have been brought. The board's only function in relation to such cases is to decide whether there are grounds for the charges being heard by a tribunal under Clause 4, and Amendment No. 14 will allow chief officers to say whether they consider that a tribunal is appropriate and, if so, why. The change does not affect the requirement for chief officers to give reasons for their decision in cases where they have not brought disciplinary charges.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 2, line 17, leave out
'disciplinary charges in respect of those matters' and insert 'such disciplinary charges'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 19, leave out 'whether' and insert
'of any exceptional circumstances affecting the case by reason of which'.
During discussions on Clause 2 in Standing Committee it was argued that, before reaching a decision whether a disciplinary tribunal should be held, the board, in so grave and complex a matter, should have the advice of the chief officer. We agree that this is highly desirable and the amendment accordingly makes the necessary provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Alison: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 2, line 20, at end insert
'and—

(iv) in respect of the disciplinary charges so referred, whether the accused officer has been provided with a copy of the original complaint and of any statements made by witnesses and by the complainant; and whether the complainant has been informed of his right to attend the disciplinary hearing'.
This is an exploratory amendment, by which we hope to establish the exact state and status, under the procedure in subsection (1), of the police officer who is subject to a complaint as between his chief officer, the complainant and the complaints board. The officer will have a great deal at stake. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said at one stage in our proceedings that there is such a thing as extended jeopardy. The whole of the machinery under subsection (1) will in some sense postpone the moment at which the officer complained against knows what his fate will be. He will know what it is to be if disciplinary charges have been preferred, which is the possibility envisaged in subsection (1)(b)(ii), because he will have been told about it.
We want to make certain that an accused officer has been put fully in the picture about a complaint. He has to make provision for his defence if there is to be a disciplinary hearing. The police regulations provide a chance for an officer to work out his defence.
It is not certain that the principle of avoiding the ex-post facto review that the Government are so anxious to stick to may not, in logic, necessitate the Government having to keep an officer at arm's length in respect of anything that he is told before the board has made up its mind. If an officer is told one thing in advance and the board decides something else, that is double jeopardy.
In the case of disciplinary charges being preferred, the board cannot rule that no other charges should be preferred. Once they have been preferred, the board can consent to their going to a tribunal.
We want to establish that an officer will be put fully in the picture before the board is brought into operation, and will be told, as far as possible, what he

is likely to be in for. One difficulty is that he cannot be told if no disciplinary charges have been decided upon at that point.
If disciplinary charges have been preferred, or a chief officer intends to prefer them, the officer concerned must have been told before the case goes to the board. That is a great advantage for him. He is let off the hook. He knows where he stands and has the chance to make provision for his defence. But in the case where a chief officer initially decides not to prefer disciplinary charges, can the officer concerned be told about that? He is obviously told the details of a complaint when discliplinary charges are preferred, but is he informed in a case where the chief officer decides not to prefer disciplinary charges?
If the officer named is told that the decision was not to prefer disciplinary charges—which would be the rational thing to do—and this was overthrown by the board, it would apparently be a case of double jeopardy.
If the officer is not to be told when no disciplinary charges are to be levelled, it seems anomalous that the chap who is alleged to have committed an offence that leads a chief officer initially to prefer charges should have the chance to work out his case, while in the less serious case the officer concerned is given less opportunity to draw up his case. It is important that we should be quite clear exactly what the officer concerned will be told in advance of going to the board.
I hope that I have made the basis of the amendment clear. It is partly exploratory, but we want, if possible, a clear indication of the extent to which the wretched officer will be put in the picture about his fate.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I appreciate the reasons behind the amendment. I agree that an officer who is the subject of a complaint and possibly disciplinary charges should be given as much information as possible about the complaint and about his possible fate.
I remind the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) that under the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1965 a member of a police force who is charged with an offence is required to be supplied as soon as possible with copies of his own statement, if he has made one, copies of


the report, allegation or complaint on which the charge is founded, copies of any reports thereon, apart from the investigating officer's report, copies of any other statements by witnesses who are to be called, and copies of any other statements made to the investigating officer. The Regulations provide that the chief constable is to allow the complainant to attend the hearing when a charge arises out of a complaint.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has said that this is basically an exploratory amendment. It seeks to require the chief officer, when referring a case to the board, to tell the board whether he has done what in any event he is required to do by law. There is no indication what the board might do if a chief officer were to tell it that he had not done what he was supposed to do, but perhaps that is not a point that I need to stress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is an unnecessary amendment. I assure him that his reading of the situation is correct. An officer is not told of the provisional decision not to bring disciplinary charges, but he is told of the eventual decision.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in all the circumstances his amendment, while exploratory, is not necessary.

Mr. Alison: If I have leave to speak again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary said in a throw-away last line that the officer is not told of a provisional decision not to prefer disciplinary charges. That seems to be a rather unfair discrimination against the most innocent type of charged officer.
Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that where a decision is made to prefer disciplinary charges—that is to say, a more serious and obvious offence—the officer is told of the decision? Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has referred to the part of the Police Act which provides for that. The officer is told of that decision and, well in advance, he has a chance to prepare his case. However, in a situation in which there is a provisional decision not to prefer charges, namely, the less serious type of offence, the officer is not told of that decision until the board is told about it. The board may say "We shall reverse the disciplinary charges", but where the provisional decision is not

to prefer charges the officer concerned does not get the advance notice that the other chap receives.
That is the difficulty. I am not absolutely certain that I want to press the Parliamentary Secretary to speak fully and definitively on this matter, but I think that he ought to weigh up this point and consider whether officers are being fairly treated in this respect, and to consider the possibility of considering this matter at a later stage. Perhaps he would care to refer to the problem.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman has been making. He is also concerned that there should be no risk of double jeopardy, and that is where the difficulty arises, because if a person were told that the provisional decision was not to bring disciplinary charges and then the board's decision—if I may use a convenient shorthand—were to prefer disciplinary charges, an element of double jeopardy would enter into matters. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall look at it.

Mr. Alison: In particular, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would consider inviting the Police Federation to consider which it would prefer—the element of double jeopardy inherent in giving early notice about no decision being taken or the opportunity that it might give to the police officer to prepare his defence in advance if he were given a clear indication as to where the likelihood of a charge lay. However, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman will at least look at this matter at a later stage.
In those circumstances, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 2, line 23, after first "the", insert "matter or".—[Mr. John Ellis.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Godman Irvine): The next amendment is Government Amendment No. 17.

Mr. John Ellis: Formally.

Mr. Alison: No.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Grateful as I am for that help from my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis), I do not think that I can be quite that informal, or that formality should be that informal.
I beg to move Amendment. No. 17, in page 2, line 26, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) where, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 5 below, the complaint has been withdrawn or the complainant has indicated that he does not wish any further steps to be taken; or
(c) where the complaint is against an officer holding a rank above superintendent and, in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 33 of the Police Act 1964, any disciplinary charges would be drawn up by a solicitor and heard by a person selected from a list of persons nominated by the Lord Chancellor.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Government Amendment No. 29.

Mr. Davidson: It has generally been agreed that, where a complaint is withdrawn or the complainant indicates that he does not wish to pursue it any further, the requirement under Section 49 to investigate the complaint should cease and that such complaints need not be referred to the board. As was mentioned in Committee, we had intended to provide for this in regulations under Clause 5(1)(e) but it has been argued that this is an important principle which should be made clear on the face of the Bill itself.
We accept the force of these arguments and paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 17 attempts to meet the point. It does so by excluding from the operation of Clause 2(1), which requires the chief officer to refer to the board any report he receives of an investigation into a complaint under Section 49, any complaint which is withdrawn or on which the complainant states that he wishes no further action to be taken. The two possibilities are included to cover the eventuality that a complainant may not want, by withdrawing his complaint completely, to appear to be admitting that there was never any justification for making it.
It will be noted that the opening words of the new paragraph (b) contemplate regulations dealing with withdrawal and so on. It is the intention that provision

should be made by regulations under Clause 5(1)(g) to ensure that only an unambiguous withdrawal by a complainant who is aware of the consequences will be taken into account for the purposes of paragraph (b).
The new paragraph (b) deals only with reference to the board under Clause 2. But a complaint may be withdrawn before its investigation under Section 49 of the 1964 Act has been completed or, in an extreme case, before it has even started. To deal with this situation the regulation making power in Clause 5(1)(e) is retained to enable the requirements of Section 49 to be dispensed with. But the new paragraph (b) to Clause 2(2) will render the reference to
the foregoing provisions of this Part of this this Act.
otiose and, accordingly, it is proposed to omit these words from Clause 5(1)(e) by Amendment No. 29. That is merely a consequential amendment.
I hope that I have made clear the purpose of the amendment. It has been moved at rather more length than merely formally. I hope that the House will agree to it.

Mr. Alison: We welcome the amendment. It seems to be entirely in line with the principle that we advocate and have advocated consistently—that a good deal of initiative should lie in the hands of the complainant. If I appear to rub salt into the wound of the hon. Gentleman, who is representing the Government, it is because of the total illogicality of what they have provided. In a ministerial letter to me it was pointed out that
Persistence on the part of the complainant does not necessarily correspond to the gravity of his complaint or its justification and we do not accept that all the more serious or justified complaints would necessarily be put to the Board under a complainant-activated scheme.
As already pointed out, the Government are depriving complainants of the opportunity of pressing the bell to activate but making it entirely possible for them to deactivate the complaints machinery. But every movement towards giving power to the complainant is most acceptable to the Opposition.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I have a little apprehension about the amendment, particularly in regard to the proposed paragraph (b), because it is relatively easy


for a police officer in certain circumstances to exert pressure on a complainant.
I recall a case some years ago in which a complaint was made—I believe with every justification—by the son of a publican. Immediately after the complaint was made, the publican found that his pub was visited every evening at two minutes past 11, and that constant checks were made to ensure that every aspect of the complex licensing laws was carefully pursued. This continued until eventually the publican persuaded his son to withdraw the complaint.
The circumstances in which complaints are made not infrequently give rise to the opportunity for harassment. Therefore, I am not at all sure that it is desirable or logical, having regard to the Opposition arguments, for complaints which have been withdrawn to be taken outside the purview of the board.
I appreciate that this is a late stage at which to ask the Government to consider this matter again, but the amendment has been put down on Report stage and was not before us when the Bill was discussed earlier. The amendment creates scope for abuse.
The constant stopping of cars and searching of people in the streets can bring about very great pressure for some of those who may have made a legitimate complaint. It is in circumstances in which a complaint is legitimate that the complainant is quite likely to be subjected to this sort of pressure. It seems to me undesirable that the board should be unable even to receive information about those cases where possibly a very justified complaint has been withdrawn in circumstances of the sort that I have mentioned.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend to reconsider whether in another place it might not be preferable to drop paragraph (b) of the amendment, as the scope for abuse would be such as to reduce very significantly the impact of the Bill. As hon. Gentlemen opposite have pointed out, it requires a deliberate action on the part of the complainant to withdraw his complaint.
I believe that the Bill would be better without this amendment, and I trust that my hon. Friend will at least give me the assurance that, before the Bill is pre-

sented in another place, he will seriously reconsider whether this part of the amendment is desirable.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman should not chicken out. Let us have a vote now in order to make the position clear.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 2, leave out lines 30 to 35.

No. 20, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
'(3) Where by virtue of subsection (2)(a) above, subsection (1) above does not apply in relation to a complaint, the chief officer of police shall, after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings (including any appeal to the Secretary of State), send to the Board—

(a) a copy of the complaint and of the report of the investigation under the said section 49; and
(b) particulars of the disciplinary charges preferred and of any punishment imposed.
(4) Where in the case of any complaint the documents mentioned in subsection (1) above are not sent to the Board before the expiration of such period as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 5 below (whether because the investigation has not been completed or for any other reason) the chief officer of police shall send to the Board—

(a) as soon as possible after the expiration of that period, a copy of the complaint; and
(b) when he sends that copy and, in accordance with any provision made by the regulations, from time to time thereafter information as to the stage reached in dealing with the complaint;
but the obligations imposed by this subsection shall apply only if and so long as the case is one to which subsection (1) above applies or could apply and where a copy of the complaint is sent to the Board under this subsection no further copy need be sent under that subsection.
(5) References in this section to a copy of the complaint shall, in the case of a complaint made orally, be construed as references to a copy of the record of the complaint'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

Clause 3

POWERS OF BOARD AS TO DISCIPLINARY CHARGES

Amendments made: No. 21, in page 2, line 37, after '2', insert '(1)'.

No. 22, in page 2, line 39, after 'the', insert 'matter or'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

Mr, Arthur Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'such recommendations, the chief officer' and insert:
'the Board have made such recommendations and consulted the chief officer, he'.
This amendment gives effect to the Government's undertaking in Standing Committee that the board would be required to hold consultations with chief officers before exercising its power in a particular case. I am sure that it will have the approval of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 3, line 7, at end insert—
'(2A) Where the Board give a chief officer a direction under subsection (2) above they shall furnish him with a written statement of their reasons for doing so'.

No. 26, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—
'(7) In discharging their functions under subsections (2) and (3) above the Board shall have regard to any guidance given to them by the Secretary of State with respect to such matters affecting the preferring and withdrawing of disciplinary charges as are for the time being the subject of guidance by him to chief officers of police, including in particular the principles to be applied in cases that involve any question of criminal proceedings and are not governed by section (Disciplinary charges in criminal cases) below'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

Clause 4

DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNALS

Mr. Sims: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 3, line 34, leave out from 'members' to 'Board' in line 35 and insert:
'one of whom shall be nominated by the Police Complaints Board and one of whom by the relevant police authority from amongst its members'.
The origin of the Bill can be traced back to the decision to set up a working group into the handling of complaints against the police and its report which was produced in March 1974. It was not able to offer unanimous recommendations, which is one of the reasons why we have had a number of problems, and why this Bill is, inevitably, a compromise.
But this report came out with certain fundamentals upon which it was agreed.

There were five cardinal principles of which the fifth particularly concerns us. It stated:
The rôle of the police authority in supervising the handling of complaints should not be diminished".
The effect of the Bill is to set up a completely new structure for dealing with police complaints and, virtually throughout it, there is no involvement by police authorities, so that their rôle is very definitely diminished.
In the course of the Bill's passage through Committee, my hon. Friends and I sought, when discussing various parts of the Bill, to remove this omission with relatively little success. Since the Bill left Committee, there have been discussions with certain interested parties and some of the suggestions which came forward in Committee have been incorporated by way of amendment. However, this is a further amendment which I hope will go some way to remedying the omission of the part that police authorities could and should play in this particular matter.
In the course of our discussions hon. Members on both sides expressed some concern at the absence of police authority representation on the tribunals which are an essential part of the machinery that we are discussing. While we were discussing this in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary indicated that he would look at this question with an open mind—admittedly without commitment—and that, having looked at it, he might put down an amendment at Report stage. He has not done so and, therefore, we have taken the step of putting down the amendment which appears on the Order Paper.
9.30 p.m.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the tribunal will consist of the chief of police, one member of the Police Complaints Board and one member of the local police authority. That will ensure a continuing rôle for the police authority and will also improve the quality of the tribunal, its proceedings and its decisions. I suggest also that this would have the merit of adding further independence to the tribunal. As it stands, the members of the complaints board, in the eyes of the public, are bound to be considered, if


not the establishment, certainly quasi-civil servants. They will be in a majority on the tribunal.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary argued that there was a need for the community to have confidence in the tribunal. We completely agree. But surely not only the community but those appearing before the tribunal would consider that a tribunal consisting of the chief police officer, one member of the Police Complaints Board and a representative of the local elected police authority would be a more balanced and fairly constituted body in which they could have full confidence. That seems an added reason why the rôle of the police authority in the complaints procedure should be increased rather than diminished, along the lines of the amendment.

Dr. Summerskill: Since Committee, the Government have carefully reconsidered the matters to which the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has referred. As he said, the amendment would provide that a tribunal under Clause 4 would include, besides the chief constable, one board member and one member of the appropriate police authority, instead of two board members. Although we are anxious to maintain the existing responsibilities of police authorities in relation to complaints, we have always made it clear that those responsibilities cannot be extended to include involvement in individual cases, which is what the amendment proposes.
Moreover, if the amendment were carried, only one of the three members of the tribunal could properly be considered to be independent of the police, because I fail to see how a member of a police authority can be regarded as totally independent of the police. Such a dilution of the independent element—

Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Lady says that she fails to understand how a member of a police authority can be regarded as independent of the police—

Dr. Summerskill: Totally independent.

Sir B. Braine: —but surely she is aware that one of the great strengths of the existing arrangements for controlling the police is that police authorities are

already responsible for overseeing the maintenance of discipline in their forces. They have a pride in their forces. They are truly independent in that sense. I wonder whether the hon. Lady would care to reconsider the words that she has just uttered.

Dr. Summerskill: No. The very explanation that the hon. Member has given seems to convey that police authorities are associated with the police, to put it mildly. As he said, it is a part of their job to keep a watch in the police. The whole point that we are discussing now is whether to have someone who is totally independent of the police on the tribunal, as the Bill proposes, or whether to have a member of the police authority on the tribunal. It is our view that we should have someone who is totally independent of the police.
The amendment would be a dilution of the independent element. By the inclusion, besides the chief officer of the police force concerned, of a member of the police authority, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is closely connected with the force, we should detract considerably from the purpose of the new scheme. Since the tribunal's decision will be by a majority, the totally independent member could always be overruled.
An additional factor is that the exceptional circumstances which will justify the holding of a tribunal may involve matters of particular local concern, and under such circumstances there could be objections to the presence of a police authority representative on the tribunal who clearly could not be totally independent of local matters. But I fail to see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The Bill includes in the tribunal two board members, and those board members will be totally independent of the police. The amendment proposes a member of the police authority, and, by the hon. Gentleman's own description, a police authority is clearly not totally independent of the police.

Sir Bernard Braine: What we are dealing with here is the word "independent". In the sense that the hon. Lady was using it, she was implying that in some way a member of a police authority is not independent of his own police force. I am saying that a police authority is


charged by law to take an overall responsibility for discipline. In that sense, it has a supervisory rôle. I hope that she will clarify this point, because she has given the impression that a member of a police authority would virtually be in the police service's pocket, and that is no so.

Dr. Summerskill: I certainly did not say that, nor did I mean that, but, as the hon. Gentleman keeps reiterating, the police authority is charged by law with certain responsibilities in relation to the police, and that is just what we want to avoid on this tribunal. Under the Bill, we already have the chief constable on the tribunal, and with him we want two board members who are independent and dissociated from the police.

Mr. Sims: Does not the hon. Lady accept that the public—and it is the public view which is important here—may feel that it is more an independent and impartial body if it has one person from the Police Complaints Board—who is, after all, appointed by the Prime Minister, salaried and may well at least be considered part of the establishment—and a local person, a member of the police authority, who is not salaried and is not in the pay of anyone? That person may be an elected representative and therefore would be looked upon as equally independent, if not more independent than members of the board. We are trying to enhance the impression of independence.

Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate that hon. Gentlemen are trying to enhance the impression of independence, but I still think that a member of the board would be more independent of the police. Such a person, even if appointed by the Prime Minister, is totally separate from and is not associated with the police in any way—more so than an albeit elected representative who would nevertheless be a member of the police authority, with all the links and affiliations and associations he would have with the police.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 5

COMPLAINTS REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 4, line 33, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

'(b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above—

(i) for requiring a chief officer of police to furnish a member of his police force against whom such a complaint is made with a copy of, or of the record of, the complaint;
(ii) for requiring the Board to transmit any such complaint received by them to the chief officer of the police force concerned;
(bb) for requiring any action or decision, of the Board to be notified to the persons concerned and, in connection therewith, for enabling the Board to furnish those persons with any relevant information;'.

No. 29, in line 41, leave out or of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act'.

No. 30, in page 5, line 1, leave out from 'taken' to end of line 3 and insert—
'(ee) for enabling the Board to dispense with any requirement of that section or of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act in circumstances other than those mentioned in paragraph (e) above;'.

No. 31, in line 10, leave out 'cases' and insert circumstances'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Amendment proposed: No. 32, in page 5, line 17, leave out 'and any statutory instrument containing such regulations' and insert:
'(5) Regulations containing any such provision as is mentioned in subsection (1)(ee) above shall not be made unless a draft of them has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament; and other regulations under this section'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take Amendment No. 33, in page 5, line 17, leave out and any statutory instrument containing such regulations' and insert:
'(5) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Mr. Sims: The Parliamentary Secretary has formally moved Amendment No. 32, but I suggest that, on an important amendment such as this, the Government should give a brief word of explanation.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: I am happy to do so. The hon. Member will appreciate that in response to requests made in Standing Committee I undertook to consider whether the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure would be appropriate for any of the regulations to be made under the clause. I explained during the discussions that


many of the regulations to be made under the clause were likely to be included in a single Statutory Instrument with discipline regulations made under Section 33 of the Police Act 1964. As I explained at that time, such regulations are themselves subject to negative resolution and it could cause difficulties if Clause 5 regulations relating to discipline had to be dealt with under a different procedure. Most Clause 5 regulations will relate to procedural matters for which the affirmative resolution procedure would be inappropriate.
However, we think that the affirmative resolution procedure, although inappropriate for most of the powers in Clause 5, would be justified in the case of regulations made under what was the second half of Clause 5(1)(e) and which is now subsection (5)(1)(ee). This is because such regulations will have an important bearing on the substance, and not just the method, of the board's work in that they may specify certain categories of complaint in respect of which the board will have power in a particular case submitted to it to dispense with further inquiries and with further consideration by the board itself. The amendment is intended, therefore, to secure that these regulations shall be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

CONSTABULARIES MAINTAINED BY AUTHORITIES OTHER THAN POLICE AUTHORITIES

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
'(2) If in the case of any body of constables the Board have not within twelve months after the coming into force of this section made such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit and after consulting the Board and the authority in question, by order make such arrangements as aforesaid.
(3) The power to make orders under this section includes power to vary or revoke a previous order and shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Clause 7

REPORTS

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 5, line 41, at end insert:
'(1A) The Board may make to the Secretary of State a report on any matters coming to their notice to which they consider that his attention should be drawn by reason of their gravity or of other exceptional circumstances; and the Board shall send a copy of any such report to the police authority and the chief officer of police of any police force which appears to the Board to be concerned or, if the report concerns any such body of constables as is mentioned in section 6 above, to the authority maintaining, and the officer having the direction and control of, that body of constables.'

No. 38, in page 6, line 4, at end insert
'and the report shall contain a statement of any guidance given to them in that year under section 3(7) above '.

No. 39, in page 6, line 7, at end insert:
'(4) The Board shall send to every police authority—

(a) a copy of every report made by the Board under subsection (2) above; and
(b) any statistical or other general information relating to the year dealt with by the report and the area of that authority which the Board consider should be brought to the authority's attention in connection with their functions under section 50 of the Police Act 1964.
(5) The Board shall keep under review the working of this Part of this Act and make to the Secretary of State a report thereon at least once in every three years after the coming into force of this section.'—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Clause 9

DISCIPLINE REGULATIONS

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 7, line 31, after 'London', insert:
'and any officer holding a rank appearing to the Secretary of State to correspond to that of assistant chief constable in a force maintained under that section'.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Clause 11

COMMENCEMENT

Mr. Aitken: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 9, line 3, after 'day' insert:
'following the expiry of a period of twelve months from the date of passing of this Act'.


The purpose of the amendment is to delay the legislation by one year from the date of the passing of the Act. We believe that such a delay is advisable so as not to bring Parliament into ridicule and contempt on account of the astonishingly misguided sense of priorities which the Government have in the matter of the Police Complaints Board.
It is vital not to do anything to undermine public confidence in the police. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves at this stage of our deliberations that the public seem to have a much higher opinion of the high standing of the police than some Labour Members who have been so critical of the police in the course of our debates. In 1973–74 the Public Opinion Research Centre carried out a series of public opinion polls asking those interviewed in which of the leading 18 public institutions they had most confidence. Rather surprisingly, perhaps, the police came top of the polls. That is an important indication of the high degree of public confidence which exists in the police.
During the course of our debates I have often wondered whether we are not creating a camel to strain after a gnat. I recognise that some years ago there were grounds for anxiety, particularly as regards the Metropolitan Police Force. Today, thanks to the remarkably clean sweep of the broom of Sir Robert Mark, there has been a change in the whole ethical tone of the Metropolitan Police Force—the Criminal Investigation Department, in particular. Indeed there has been a cleaning up of many other police forces in the country over the past five years. One wonders whether the Bill is not aimed at answering a demand which does not now exist, even though there were murmurings some years ago.
9.45 p.m.
The Bill is ill-timed, its structure is thoroughly bad and it creates a large new bureaucracy at a substantial cost to taxpayers at a time when they can least afford it. There are cheaper ways of introducing an independent element, which should be studied more closely to oversee complaints against the police.
I question the sense of priority which has brought the Bill to the forefront of the Government's legislative programme. At a time when the war against crime is being fought more fiercely than ever, when

terrorism is increasing and when there is rising tide of juvenile crime and general lawlessness, it is astonishing that the Government have chosen to bring forward a Bill to make it easier to complain against the police.
The Under-Secretary of State last week addressed senior police officers in Bournemouth. She indicated that stringent economic measures would be necessary to restrict public spending on the police and yet she comes to the House to make it clear that the Government are willing to spend large sums of public money—our estimate is between £1 million and £2 million—on complaints against the police. That is disgraceful. She is Scrooge when it comes to providing money to fight crime and Lady Bountiful when it comes to enabling people to make complaints against the police.
The Bill has a Byzantine complexity. The worst feature is the Government's refusal to look at the one structural remedy which could make such a difference to the Bill and which would allow the Bill to be complainant activated. We have already debated that matter but it is a manifest absurdity that we should have a new bureaucracy involving nine new members of the complaints board, 30 new civil servants grinding away at a mass of paper work simply to try to find complaints which are so important that they need to be taken to tribunals and investigated more fully than at present. That these procedures are to be operated automatically is an absurdity. It would be better to have machinery which is complainant activated. The complainant can stop the procedures but not start them. That is illogical.
One aspect of the Bill which has not yet been touched upon is that it will reproduce exactly the same procedures into Northern Ireland. I cannot think of a worse place to impose this impossible bureaucratic structure without it being at least complainant activated and without the structure and public money involved being cut.
Several senior police officers, including Sir Robert Mark more publicly, have said that the Bill will make it harder effectively to operate internal discipline. Sir Robert Mark has spoken of the


undesirability of reducing internal police discipline to what he called
an unsatisfactory level of criminal justice ".
Internal disciplinary procedures for doubtful policemen must be tougher and harsher than those set for criminal justice. Anything which devalues those standards is to be abhorred by the House.
I turn to the bureaucracy which we are creating. This Government in particular have created a plethora of boards, ranging from the absurd Rhubarb Advisory Board now to the Police Complaints Board. I am very much concerned about the extension of Prime Ministerial patronage that the Bill envisages, at a time when such patronage is already under sharp public scrutiny. After the honours list of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), nine new fat cats, each paid an average salary of £10,000 a year, will be brought into the bureaucracy. The timing, if not the whole concept, is utterly wrong.
I should refer to the political dangers of the Bill. It is essential that politics should be kept out of the police, yet the Bill, by bringing Prime Ministerial appointees to oversee the whole system of internal discipline, could be, in the view of many chief constables and senior officers, the Trojan horse which brings political interference into the police complaints system.
Finally, and perhaps most important, I turn to the question of costs. We had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer today yet another sharp reminder that despite his air of seeming complacency there is a real desire by the Government, and certainly there is by my party, to bring public expenditure under control. But what can foreigners or British taxpayers think when they see a Bill which seeks substantially to increase public expenditure? Throughout our debates the hon. Lady has consistently said that the Bill will cost the taxpayer only £300,000. That is a demonstrably fraudulent figure. The hon. Lady's own figures include paying £96,000 to the chairman and the board members, £36,000 for accommodation costs, £24,000 for typing, duplicating and use of stationery and telephones, and £113,000 for the salaries of the 30 or so civil

servants. Looking at those figures, we soon realise that we are in a world of soothsayers and astrologers rather than statisticians when we try to make them add up to a realistic total.

Dr. Summerskill: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument as it relates to his amendment. Surely all these criticisms about the Bill and the board would still apply if it were carried.

Mr. Aitken: The advantage of our amendment is that it gives 12 months for second thoughts about these figures and, perhaps more important, that it gives the Government time to come clean about the real costs of the Bill. They cannot be made to add up as little as £300,000 when we take into account inflation and the substantial travelling costs. No doubt there will soon be the acquisition of prestige offices and regional departments. The work load, which the hon. Lady estimates at eight and a half complaints per member per day, is unsustainable.
The A10 Department of Scotland Yard, whose work load will be immeasurably increased by the Bill, already employs 90 people and costs more than £1 million a year to operate. The Kent police have investigated this year one complaint which cost them £16,000 and many other complaints running into several hundreds of pounds. From that one area alone I have been able to derive accurate figures suggesting that the hon. Lady's £300,000 estimate is absurd.
We should also remember that, again on the hon. Lady's own estimate, whereas complaints against the police are now running at 17,000 a year, there will be a substantial increase in the volume of complaints as a result of the board's being brought into existence, thanks to extra publicity and so on. This will mean in effect a 50 per cent. increase, leading to 25,000 complaints a year by 1977. That is the hon. Lady's own estimate—not mine. It really is a nonsense to suggest that by enacting this Bill we shall be fulfilling our duty as legislators and getting our priorities right. The time is surely ripe to pause and reflect upon whether we need the Bill at all and whether we could not find some simpler and cheaper way of introducing the independent element into complaints against the police.
Above all, on the public expenditure point, we are being two-faced and hypocritical if, on the one hand, all parties call for restraint and yet the Government, even when they say they are trying to reduce public expenditure, introduce a Bill which can do nothing but throw away public money to the tune of £2 million or £3 million.

Sir Bernard Braine: Sir Bernard Brainerose—

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), may I say that I was more tolerant than usual with the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) in allowing him to make his "Third Reading speech". I thought it might save time later.

Mr. Aitken: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that nobody else will think that he can make a Third Reading speech on this amendment.

Sir B. Braine: I am deeply moved by your kind advice, Mr. Speaker. I shall seek to follow what you have just said.
I begin by expressing my wholehearted agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken). The Bill is certainly ill-timed and largely unwanted. The delay that my hon. Friend seeks by means of the amendment is, in my view, wholly justified, so that second thoughts may prevail, so that there can be long and, I hope, fruitful and constructive consultation with the police staff associations and local authorities, and so that a little realism may be allowed to creep into the matter.
I say that for two reasons. First, investigations of complaints by the public against the police are carried out by the police service itself. They cannot be carried out by any other body. No matter how the Government like to dress up the new machinery, at the end of the day

Division No. 160.]
AYES
10.00 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Bean, R. E.
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Allaun, Frank
Beith, A. J.
Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)


Archer, Peter
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Ronald (Hacknoy S)


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, E. S.
Buchan, Norman


Ashley, Jack
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard


Ashton, Joe
Boardman, H.
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)


Atkinson, Norman
Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Campbell, Ian


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Canavan, Dennis


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Bradley, Tom
Cant, R. B.

the whole system depends upon the capacity and, indeed, the willingness of the police service to carry out these investigations.
It is relevant for my hon. Friend to remind the House and, in particular, the Government that the police service at the moment is carrying an exceptionally heavy burden in the fight against crime and in the protection of the public against terrorism. The burden was underlined by the speech of the Under-Secretary of State when, at Bournemouth last week—I think it was very courageous and proper of her—she warned the police service as a whole that there was no more money in the kitty and that the service would have to make do with what it had.
I am not criticising the hon. Lady Tot making that statement. All I am saying is that to put an additional burden on the police service at this time, without full consultation, is wrong and that the amendment will provide an opportunity for reflection and proper action. The Bill does absolutely nothing to ease the burden that the police are shouldering; indeed, in present circumstances the proposals in the Bill will add very heavily to that burden. That is my judgment and the judgment of many people in the police service with whom I have talked.
Complaints against the police are running at 17,500 a year—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That, at this day's Sitting, Government Business may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 220.

Carmichael, Neil
Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Carter, Ray
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hooson, Emiyn
Noble, Mike


Cartwright, John
Horam, John
Oakes, Gordon


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Ogden, Eric


Clemitson, Ivor
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Orbach, Maurice


Cohen, Stanley
Huckfield, Les
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Ovenden, John


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Padley, Walter


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Palmer, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pardoe, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hunter, Adam
Park, George


Corbett, Robin
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Parker, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Parry, Robert


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Pavitt, Laurie


Crawford, Douglas
Janner, Greville
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pendry, Tom


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Penhaligon, David


Cryer, Bob
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Perry, Ernest


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
John, Brynmor
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Prescott, John


Davidson, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Radice, Giles


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Judd, Frank
Richardson, Miss Jo


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Gerald
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Roderick, Caerwyn


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roper, John


Dunlop, John
Leadbitter, Ted
Rose, Paul B.


Dunn, James A.
Lee, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rowlands, Ted


Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Sandelson, Neville


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sedgemore, Brian


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lipton, Marcus
Selby, Harry


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Litterick, Tom
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lomas, Kenneth
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyna)


Ennals, David
Loyden, Eddie
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Luard, Evan
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle G)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Evans John (Newton)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McCusker, H.
Sillars, James


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
McElhone, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Macfarquhar Roderick
Skinner, Dennis


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Small, William


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Flannery, Martin
Mackintosh, John P.
Snape, Peter


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Maclennan, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stallard, A. W.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McNamara, Kevin
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Ford, Ben
Madden, Max
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Forrester, John
Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mahon, Simon
Stoddart, David


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stott, Roger


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Strang, Gavin


Freud, Clement
Marquand, David
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


George, Bruce
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Swain, Thomas


Gilbert, Dr John
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Golding, John
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Gould, Bryan
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Gourlay, Harry
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mendelson, John
Tierney, Sydney


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mikardo, Ian
Tinn, James


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Millan, Bruce
Tomlinson, John


Grocott, Bruce
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Torney, Tom


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Tuck, Raphael


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Urwin, T. W.


Hardy, Peter
Molloy, William
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Harper, Joseph
Moonman, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Halton, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Ward, Michael


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkins, David







Watkinson, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Woodall, Alec


Weetch, Ken
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Woof, Robert


Weitzman, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Young, David (Bolton E)


White, Frank R. (Bury)
Williams, Sir Thomas



White, James (Pollok)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Whitehead, Phillip
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Mr. Alf Bates and


Whitlock, William
Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Ted Graham.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Aitken, Jonathan
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mudd, David


Alison, Michael
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Neave, Airey


Arnold, Tom
Gray, Hamish
Nelson, Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Grist, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Banks, Robert
Grylls, Michael
Normanton, Tom


Bell, Ronald
Hail, Sir John
Nott, John


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onslow, Cranley


Benyon, W.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hampson, Dr Keith
Osborn, John


Biffen, John
Hannam, John
Page, John (Harrow West)


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Pattie, Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Hayhoe. Barney
Percival, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Heseltine, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boltomley, Peter
Hicks, Robert
Prior, Rt Hon James


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hordern, Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Brittan, Leon
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Hunt, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hurd, Douglas
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
James, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Ridsdale, Julian


Budgen, Nick
Jessel, Toby
Ritkind, Malcolm


Bulmer, Esmond
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Burden, F. A.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, Mark
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kershaw, Anthony
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kimball, Marcus
Sainsbury, Tim


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clegg, Walter
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Scott, Nicholas


Cockcroft, John
Kitson, Sir Timorthy
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Knox, David
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cope, John
Lane, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Cormack, Patrick
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shepherd, Colin


Costain, A. P.
Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Le Merchant, Spencer
Silvester, Fred


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sims, Roger


Crowder, F. P.
Lloyd, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Luce, Richard
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Speed, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McCrindle, Robert
Spence, John


Drayson, Burnaby
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
MacGregor, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Durant, Tony
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Sproat, Iain


Dykes, Hugh
Madel, David
Stainton, Keith


Emery, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marten, Neil
Stanley, John


Farr, John
Mates, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Maude, Angus
Stokes, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mawby, Ray
Stradling, Thomas J.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Tebbit, Norman


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Peter
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Miscampbell, Norman
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Fry, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Monro, Hector
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gilmour, Sir John (East Pile)
Montgomery, Fergus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Glyn, Dr. Alan
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Morgan, Geraint
Viggers, Peter


Goodhart, Philip
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walker, David (Clitheroe)


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Goodlad, Atastair

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek







Warren, Kenneth
Wiggin, Jerry



Weatherill, Bernard
Winterton, Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, John
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Mr. Jim Lester and


Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Younger, Hon George
Mr. John Corrie.

Question accordingly agreed to.

POLICE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Sir B. Braine: When I was temporarily halted I was in the process of explaining why the delay proposed in the amendment should be accepted. I said there were two reasons why such a delay would help the Government to come to the right conclusion. First of all, the investigation of complaints is a matter for the police, and whatever arrangements are devised in this Bill it is still the police service that has to carry out the investigation of complaints.
The burden upon the police in present circumstances is very heavy. Time is needed for proper consultation with the police staff associations. That has been manifest in various stages in our discussions in Committee and on Report. The Government have declined to spell out the detailed requirement that should be put into the Bill. They have preferred to leave the matter to Regulations, but in police matters Regulations require long, detailed and careful scrutiny with the police staff associations. That in itself is a good reason for accepting the amendment.
10.15 p.m.
Time must be allowed for consideration of what these Regulations should contain. For one thing, this is one of the most astonishing Bills ever to be brought before the House of Commons. It takes a basically good idea—the simple notion that there should be an independent element in considering complaints against the police—and it invests it, smothers it, and one might almost say strangles it with a massive bureaucratic machine.
My complaint throughout our discussions on the Bill, and the justification for the amendment, is that the Government have never grasped the full implications of what they have proposed. That

is taking the most charitable view of their ludicrous assertion that the cost of this bureaucratic machine will not exceed £300,000 a year. We were even given an assurance that that limited cost would be met entirely out of central funds and would place no additional burden on local authorities. That is manifest nonsense.
In 1974, complaints against the police were running at about 17,500, and that number is steadily rising. The Metropolitan Police maintains a special department—it is called A10—to consider nothing but complaints against the police. It employs 80 to 90 full-time officers, but they deal with only 11 per cent. of all the complaints laid against the Metropolitan Police. I must say in passing that well over 90 per cent. of those complaints are found to be unsubstantiated and that not much mere than 1 per cent. of complainants express themselves as dissatisfied. If that set-up is necessary under existing Regulations for no more than 11 per cent. of complaints levelled against the Metropolitan Police, we contend that it would require, over the country, an additional 320 police officers.
Where would the money for those additional officers come from? It will not come from Government funds—we have been told that. The Under-Secretary told the police so last week in her speech at Bournemouth. Many months ago the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), when Secretary of State for the Environment, told local authorities that the party was over. Every council in the country has cut its services. We are therefore entitled to ask where the money will come from for this ludicrous new arrangement.
Under existing arrangements it is becoming increasing difficult for chief constables to find the superintendents in their forces to deal with the more serious complaints. I hope that the Government will come clean on this, because there has been no admission from them about the difficulties encountered by the police in operating the existing system, let alone the one in the Bill for which we are asking but a modest delay. At present it is very difficult to find police officers


from other forces to take on the job of investigating complaints. Why do the Government not tell the House the truth?
The Prime Minister is in his place. As the appointed Minister, he is responsible for seting up this elaborate and expensive new machinery, the true cost of which has been concealed from Parliament. I do not think the Prime Minister knows what is being done in his name. He inherited this situation and I hesitate to place an additional burden on his shoulders. I admire and respect the right hon. Gentleman greatly, and it would not be fair to ask him to explain this matter to the House.
However, the Under-Secretary, who has had to bear the heat and burden of the day on this Bill, ill-advised at almost every turn by her professional advisers—she has done splendidly with such a lack of ammunition—should now come clean and tell us where the money is coming from to pay for this elaborate, expensive and unwanted new machinery.
It is because of the uncertainties, the need for second thoughts and the need for extensive consultations with the police staff associations that I beg the Government to think again and to accept the modest and reasonable proposals contained in the amendment.

Dr. Summerskill: I shall speak to the amendment. Its effect would be to delay the coming into operation of at least Part

Division No. 161.]
AYES
[10.25 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Alison, Michael
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arnold, Tom
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Forman, Nigel


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Clegg, Walter
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Banks, Robert
Cockcroft, John
Fox, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cope, John
Fry, Peter


Berry, Hon Anthony
Cormack, Patrick
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Biffen, John
Corrie, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Sir John (East File)


Blaker, Peter
Critchley, Julian
Glyn, Dr. Alan


Body, Richard
Crouch, David
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Crowder, F. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Bottomley, Peter
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Goodhew, Victor


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodlad, Alastair


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Brittan, Leon
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Drayson, Burnaby
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gray, Hamish


Bryan, Sir Paul
Durant, Tony
Grist, Ian


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Dykes, Hugh
Grylls, Michael


Buck, Antony
Emery, Peter
Hall, Sir John


Budgen, Nick
Eyre, Reginald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bulmer, Esmond
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Burden, F. A.
Farr, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Finsberg. Geoffrey
Hannam, John


Carlisie, Mark
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

I of the Bill for 12 months from the date the Bill is passed. During that time, nothing could happen. It would then be possible to bring into force at least Clause 1 and the schedule, so that the board could be appointed and have a corporate existence, but it would be 18 months or more before the new scheme could get under way, and such a delay is quite unacceptable. The speeches on this amendment were not in favour of delay; they were against the Bill.
It is our intention that the board should be set up and begin its duties as soon as possible. Appointing members of the board and its staff and preparing Regulations will begin at the earliest possible moment. All this will necessarily take time, but we believe it could be completed in a period of 12 months. In these circumstances, the delay implicit in the amendment cannot be accepted.
It has rightly been said that public confidence in the police is extremely high—possibly higher than ever. This Bill will enhance and increase that confidence and not detract from it.
The Bill received an unopposed Second Reading. There is no reason why it should not be put on the statute book and become operative as soon as possible.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 300.

Hasting, Stephen
Mills, Peter
Shepherd, Colin


Hayhoe, Barney
Miscampbell, Norman
Shersby, Michael


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sims, Roger


Higgins, Terence L.
Moate, Roger
Sinclair, Sir George


Hordern, Peter
Monro, Hector
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Montgomery, Fergus
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hunt, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Speed, Keith


Hurd, Douglas
Morgan, Geraint
Spence, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


James, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Sproat, Iain


Jessel, Toby
Mudd, David
Stainton, Keith


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Neave, Airey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nelson, Anthony
Stanley, John


Jopling, Michael
Neubert, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Normanton, Tom
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Nott, John
Stokes, John


Kershaw, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Stradling, Thomas J.


Kimball, Marcus
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tapsell, Peter


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Osborn, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Kitson, Sir Timorthy
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tebbit, Norman


Knox, David
Pattie, Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lane, David
Percival, Ian
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Lawrence, Ivan
Prior, Rt Hon James
Townsend, Cyril D.


Le Marchant, Spencer
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Trotter, Neville


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rathbone, Tim
Tugendhat, Christopher


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lloyd, Ian
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Loveridge, John
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Viggers, Peter


Luce, Richard
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


McCrindle, Robert
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Macfarlane, Neil
Rifkind, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


MacGregor, John
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Weatherill, Bernard


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wells, John


Madel, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wiggin, Jerry


Marten, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Winterton Nicholas


Mates, Michael
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Mather, Carol
Royle, Sir Anthony
Younger, Hon George


Maude, Angus
Sainsbury, Tim



Mawby, Ray
SI. John-Stevas, Norman
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Fred Silvester and


Mayhew, Patrick
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. W. Benyon.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)



Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shelton, William (Streatham)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Cant, R. B.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Allaun, Frank
Carmichael, Neil
Duffy, A. E. P.


Anderson, Donald
Carter, Ray
Dunn, James A.


Archer, Peter
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunnett, Jack


Armstrong, Ernest
Cartwright, John
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Ashley, Jack
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Eadie, Alex


Ashton, Joe
Clemitson, Ivor
Edge, Geoff


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Atkinson, Norman
Cohen, Stanley
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Ennals, David


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Concannon, J. D.
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bates, Alf
Conlan, Bernard
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Bean, R. E.
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Beith, A, J.
Corbett, Robin
Evans John (Newton)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Bidwell, Sydney
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bishop, E. S.
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cryer, Bob
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Flannery, Martin


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Dalyell, Tarn
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bradley, Tom
Davidson, Arthur
Ford, Ben


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Forrester, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Davies, Denzll (Llanelli)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Freeson, Reginald


Buchan, Norman
Deakins, Eric
Freud, Clement


Buchanan, Richard
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Gilbert, Dr John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Dempsey, James
Golding, John


Campbell, Ian
Doig, Peter
Gould, Bryan


Canavan, Dennis
Dormand, J. D.
Gourlay, Harry







Graham, Ted
Mackenzie, Gregor
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mackintosh, John P.
Rowlands, Ted


Grant, John (Islington C)
Maclennan, Robert
Sandelson, Neville


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Grocott, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin
Selby, Harry


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Madden, Max
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Hamilton, w. W. (Central Fife)
Magee, Bryan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Hardy, Peter
Mahon, Simon
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marquand, David
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hatton, Frank
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sillars, James


Heffer, Eric S.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Silverman, Julius


Hooley, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan
Skinner, Dennis


Hooson, Emlyn
Meacher, Michael
Small, William


Horam, John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Mendelson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mikardo, Ian
Stallard, A. W.


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Millan, Bruce
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Huckfield, Les
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Stoddart, David


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Molloy, William
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Roy (Nwport)
Moonman, Eric
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swain, Thomas


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Janner, Greville
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Newens, Stanley
Tierney, Sydney


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Noble, Mike
Tinn, James


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Oakes, Gordon
Tomlinson, John


John, Brynmor
Ogden, Eric
Torney, Tom


Johnson, James (Hull West)
O'Halloran, Michael
Tuck, Raphael


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Orbach, Maurice
Urwin, T. W.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ovenden, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Padley, Walter
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Palmer, Arthur
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Judd, Frank
Pardoe, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kaufman, Gerald
Park, George
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Kelley, Richard
Parker, John
Ward, Michael


Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert
Watkins, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkinson, John


Kinnock, Neil
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Weetch, Ken


Lambie, David
Pendry, Tom
Weitzman, David


Lamborn, Harry
Penhaligon, David
Wellbeloved, James


Lamond, James
Perry, Ernest
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Phipps, Dr Colin
White, James (Pollok)


Leadbitter, Ted
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Whitehead, Phillip


Lee, John
Prescott, John
Whitlock, William


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Radice, Giles
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lipton, Marcus
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Sir Thomas


Litterick, Tom
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lomas, Kenneth
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Loyden, Eddie
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Luard, Evan
Roderick, Caerwyn
Woodall, Alec


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Woof, Robert


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McCartney, Hugh
Rooker, J. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


McElhone, Frank
Roper, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Joseph Harper and


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Mr. Peter Snape.

Question accordingly negatived.

POLICE BILL

Schedule

THE POLICE COMPLAINTS BOARD

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 10, line 18, leave out ' Secretary of State ' and insert 'Prime Minister'.

No. 44, in page 10, line 22, at end insert—
'(b) he has been convicted of a criminal offence; or'.—[Mr Thomas Cox.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw: It is important to start with some points of clear agreement about the Bill. The first is that everyone accepts that the police in this country today justifiably enjoy considerable public confidence. It is extremely important to state this over and over again.
I believe that there is also a demand, in order to strengthen that public confidence, for an independent element of inquiry into complaints against the police. That was accepted by my right hon. Friend Lord Carr when he was Home Secretary, it has been accepted since by all Governments, and there is no dispute in any part of the House that such an independent inquiry into complaints against the police is right and should be pursued.
The trouble is that so far no one has been able to find a means which does this acceptably, at reasonable cost, and without destroying public confidence in the police—or, indeed, without considerable dislike in various elements of the police service. That is the problem we have at the present time.
We are committed to an independent element of inquiry into the police. I make that perfectly clear to the Home Secretary and would not go back on it for a moment. The trouble he has had with the Bill is that in putting forward his particular solution he has found that very few people are enthusiastic about it and many people strongly oppose it.
I do not suggest necessarily that that is an impossible answer or solution—that

some people do not like it much and others very much oppose it—because there are many solutions in government which have to be accepted on that basis. But in looking at what has happened to the Bill we have to accept that as it stands it is widely disliked.
We know the views of Sir Robert Mark, and I accept at once what the Home Secretary has said about his position. I am sure it is the correct one. The Association of County Councils and the police authorities have expressed their views in no uncertain terms. The Police Federation has said that it would prefer this Bill to any other but it has equally said that it dislikes the Bill. This again is something with which we all have to reckon. The Bill, indeed, has very few friends.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and I did not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. We have made many attempts in different fundamental ways to alter and improve it. The arguments which have gained most support have been these in favour of complainant-activated complaints. A very strong case has also been made for the idea of an ombudsman, but this again has been rejected by the Government.
We have also put forward the idea that the Bill should be delayed for 12 months, and the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State has just turned down that proposal. We have at many stages of the Bill sought to change it and to find something which would be more acceptable in broad terms.
I accept at once—and the Home Secretary would remind me of it if I did not—that it is very difficult indeed to find a broad measure of agreement on how one could have a sensible and wise independent element in inquiries into complaints against the police. I accept that, but I do not believe that the Bill as it stands provides that answer. We also have to accept that, as it stands, it will do quite a lot to undermine, in many areas, confidence as far as the police are concerned. I fear it will also produce extra cost, and I do not believe that the extra cost can be justified at the present time.
I would therefore say to the Home Secretary that, while we support the


principle, I fear that after all the argument we cannot accept this solution. We believe it will not provide the necessary procedure. The people associated with the police service dislike it and we fear it will certainly mean extra bureaucratic cost at a time when I do not think anyone can wish for that. For all these reasons I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we wish to press our opposition to the Bill at this stage by voting against the Third Reading.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) expressed his party's continued support for the principle of an independent element in the police complaints procedure. It has sometimes been difficult to discern that support in some of the statements made in this House and outside. It has sometimes been difficult to distinguish between the suggestion that the time is not right for this measure and outright opposition to it.
Of course, there are widely differing views as to how that principle can best be given effect both by this House and, indeed, by the police service itself. That would not be surprising. I think Conservative Members put forward those different alternatives in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that his hon. Friends attempted to make substantial changes to the Bill. They have gone in quite different directions in pursuit of this from, at one stage, a scheme for a local authority-based complaints procedure to the alternative suggestions that they have been putting forward tonight. I do not believe they are unreasonable in doing this, but they must recognise that we cannot exonerate ourselves from the responsibility of giving effect to the generally accepted objective simply because there are differences of view as to how it should be brought about.
After a lengthy and detailed Committee stage we have a Bill in a form which I believe can work. It can benefit the police service as well as the community. The Bill has been widened to include police forces other than those maintained by local authorities, and I am glad of this. Some of its more awkward features have been satisfactorily ironed out. I am confident that the police will operate the Bill to the best of their ability even

though there are reservations about some parts of it.
I have no doubt at all about the way the police will regard the Bill when they come to operate it in practice. I believe they will benefit from it because it will be clearly demonstrated that the vast majority of complaints made against the police are satisfactorily dealt with and that a large majority of complaints which are made are without foundation. This will be to the benefit of the police, and the existence of an independent means of proving this will be to the benefit of the community. I shall support the Third Reading of the Bill.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Whitehead: I have been associated with the Bill from an early stage and, indeed, introduced a Private Members' Bill on the subject two years ago. I intervene merely to say to the Home Secretary that we on this side of the House, and, perhaps, hon. Members opposite, are grateful to him for persevering with this measure and carrying it through to its Third Reading. It would be idle to pretend that the Bill has had an easy passage through Committee. There was a great deal of opposition then and a curious alliance between those who wished to see the Bill strengthened and those who wished to see it watered down. I am glad to see that we sustained all that opposition and that we are able, after some discussion, to come through with the Bill as it has been presented during the two days of Report and now Third Reading.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) for missing the first two minutes of his speech. I had expected that the war of attrition in which we are now involved would have been taken more seriously by the Opposition.
I think the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman quoted would almost certainly have been brought to bear during the final stages of the Bill whatever form it had taken and however long consultations had gone on. The fact is that there are many elements associated with the police who have misgivings about the Bill. They would have had misgivings about anything. They expressed themselves forcibly in the consultations with


two Governments and three Home Secretaries.
I think that the police will now see that the Bill is going into law in a form which will actually engender confidence and make their job easier. This was never intended to be a measure "knocking" the police or to diminish confidence in them. In its final form it will give us not merely the police service we deserve and have a right to expect but also a measure of public confidence in that service. That is crucially important, and for that reason alone my right hon. Friend should be congratulated on seeing the Bill through in the difficult times that the Government are facing.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. David Lane: I have to declare an indirect interest as an adviser to the Association of Chief Police Officers; but the area on which I occasionally advise it does not include disciplinary matters. In any case, the Association has made its views public and I am speaking purely for myself.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) has confirmed again that we accept the principle of an independent element in the complaints procedure. But I am disappointed that, after all the debate on an admittedly difficult problem, the Government have not found it possible to produce a more satisfactory package. I fear that if the Bill goes through in this form, quite apart from the risk of undermining police morale, it is bound to involve considerable extra burdens of both time and expense.
It comes back in the end to a question of priorities. Last week, the Under-Secretary of State spent a considerable time at the conference of the Association of Chief Police Officers at Bournemouth, including a speech, for which everyone was grateful. She spoke frankly—and her remarks were well publicised—about the time of austerity ahead for the police service, along with other activities of government, local and national, and of the community. We have had unhappy reminders in the last few days, particularly in the London area, of the continuing extra responsibilities which the police have to undertake in addition to their normal main job of detecting and preventing crime.
Over the very difficult period ahead, money and effort, which are bound to be limited, would be better reserved for even more urgent purposes, like increasing police strength and improving police equipment. I am sure that the Under-Secretary heard that message loud and clear from the chief officers last week. They will also have made it clear to her—as we would take for granted—that when the Bill reaches the statute book they will do their best to make a success of it.
For all these reasons, the Government would be wiser to withdraw the measure for further reflection and further efforts to produce a simpler and more widely acceptable package, although I do not under-estimate the difficulty of that. My judgment, like that of other hon. Members on this side, is that we should vote against Third Reading.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The Opposition have wavered and wobbled incredibly through Committee and Report on this Bill, making an extraordinary range of criticisms, varying from rejecting the whole principle to all kinds of fiddling changes which would not have improved it in any way.
My own objection has been clearly and logically stated throughout—that nothing short of a powerful independent body with power to investigate is satisfactory. This House wisely established some years ago, through the Parliamentary Commissioner, the principle of independent investigation of the machinery and organs of government. One can hardly conceive of a more important area into which that principle could have been extended than investigations into the police.
Policemen themselves will regret in years to come that they forced upon the Home Office the compromise with which the House is now faced. They have exposed the individual policeman not merely to long-range investigation of individual complaints within the existing system—which, of course, continues—but also to the possibility of an extended period of risk while the Police Complaints Board gets out the papers and decides whether the matter can be raised again. I suspect that, after some experience of this system, the police will come back to


us asking for a proper independent system.
I believe that an immense amount of the success or failure of the Bill will rest on the personality and calibre of the chairman of the board. If he is a powerful personality determined to make the system work, I think that perhaps something can be made of it. But he will have to be a man of considerable public standing who can give the board and its work prestige and authority in the eyes of the public. I support the Bill because I believe that it is a stage in our progress towards the proper independent system which is necessary, and because it is perhaps all we can get at this stage.
Although I have been in conflict a great deal in Committee with my hon. Friends who have been in charge of the Bill, I congratulate them on the way they stood up to the battering from both sides and worked extremely hard and answered very fairly the wide range of criticisms hurled at them.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: It is extraordinary that, at a time when law and order are being increasingly undermined, we should be considering a Bill to assist complaints against the police, and that, at a time when crime rates are rising violently and the police are 5.000 men short in London alone, and when tremendous good could have been done to restrain crime by having those extra men, all we are concerned about is to assist people to make complaints against the police.
If we had a Bill to strengthen the police and increase their powers and root out the faults in our criminal law procedures, which would enable the police to do their job properly, we could honestly have approved of it, but we are doing no such thing. Instead, we are undermining the police and law and order. For that reason, I oppose the Bill.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department on their persistence in bringing the Bill through. Like some of my hon. Friends, I fear that we have lost an opportunity to produce a rather better

Bill, but I find it odd that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), having, through his hon. Friends, prevented changes which might have been made in the Bill, now proposes to vote against the very Bill he was sustaining in the advice he gave them.
I believe that we shall eventually look back on the Bill as a lost opportunity. But it is a necessary Bill. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) spoke of strengthening the police, but I do not think that anyone can deny that when, in the London area alone, 400 policemen have been required to retire within the last four years when the figures for the previous period were 16 a year, it is clear that the system in the past was not satisfactory and that some independent system was essential. I am sorry that the Opposition are opposing the Bill, but I again congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on it.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: I think that this brief debate has encapsulated some of the difficulties through which we have had to steer in getting the Bill through to this stage. Those I would thank and congratulate most are my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department, who have borne the weight and burden of extremely difficult and protracted Committee and Report stages.
That has been so because this is an inherently intractable subject. Practically no country in the world has succeeded in introducing a satisfactory system of an independent element for complaints against the police, but I believe that it is necessary in the interests of the police themselves as much as of anyone else.
Some of the conclusions in the speeches from hon. Members opposite in the debate have not entirely followed from the premises on which they were argued, but the only speech I did not agree with at all was that of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). It is a gross travesty to suggest that the only thing we are doing for the police is introducing this Bill. This year has been the strongest in history for police recruitment and strength—and a good thing that is. To say one helps the police by legislative provisions is ludicrous. One helps the police by increasing their strength, which we


have done on an unexampled scale in the last year.

Mr. Stanbrook: I said legislative provision for the police.

Mr. Jenkins: We have rightly given the police full support during this period. The Bill in no way contradicts that. It is natural that all ranks in the police service should approach the departure with a degree of caution. I do not object to that.
There is a clear recognition by the House that we require an independent element, and I welcome the indication of that recognition by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), although I do not welcome his decision to vote against Third Reading. No doubt he will be able to reconcile those two attitudes.
It is not easy to produce a Bill on this subject but I have approached it throughout with an open mind. I have been willing at all stages to see whether a better scheme could be found. I have never claimed that the present scheme is perfect but I do claim that it is the best available. I have been willing to consider alternative schemes.
At times it looked as if there was an alliance between my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), but that alliance, as is sometimes the case with alliances of opposites, fell when put to the test.
The Police Federation, like other bodies, approached the Bill with caution but it is significant that it thought that on the whole the Bill was better than any known alternative.
I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who has played a notable paving part in achieving the passage of the Bill.
The Bill arises out of no distrust of the police by the House, by myself or my predecessors. We believe that the police do an enormously important and difficult job and that they do it well. As the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border underlined, their position will be im-

proved and strengthened by an independent element. With all its difficulties, the Bill is the best way of introducing that element.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), who, as usual, couched his remarks in a moderate form. I did not know that he had become adviser to the Association of Chief Police Officers. He was somewhat less articulate than advisers to other ranks within the police service but no doubt on future occasions when we hear his voice it will be sensible. It was not sensible to say that the Bill involves vast additional cost. I am determined that the scheme will be run not in a bureaucratic way but economically. The costs involved will be minute in proportion to the cost of the police service as a whole. Nor can I accept the argument that three years and more after the then right lion. Member for Carshalton, now Lord Carr, announced in principle that such a scheme should be brought into being it is sensible to say "Yes, but not now." If something is right, it should be done, and not postponed indefinitely.

Mr. Alison: Will the right hon. Gentleman not do a disservice to Lord Carr and his memory as Home Secretary by advancing the argument that he was in favour of this kind of scheme? He was not. It was the idea of an ex post facto review.

Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point. I was not praying in aid Lord Carr's support for the Bill. I was saying that three years and more after he said that we needed such a Bill it is not reasonable to say that we need it but not now, that we should have it at some time in the distant future. I believe that this is an improvement on the scheme Lord Carr put forward, although I pay tribute to him for having seized this nettle, something which I did not do when I was previously Home Secretary and which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not do when he was Home Secretary. Lord Carr seized the nettle in 1973 and put forward a scheme on which we have built.
I believe that we now have the best scheme we could get. In my view, it is in the best interests of the police service.


It marks no possible lack of confidence in the police service on the part of the House, but rather our considered view that the Bill, although perhaps not perfect, but by far the best we could get, will in due course work effectively and strengthen still further public confidence in the police.
I would hazard the guess that in a few years' time the Bill will be accepted as a

Division No. 162.]
AYES
[11.05 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dormand, J. D.
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)


Allaun, Frank
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
John, Brynmor


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Archer, Peter
Dunn, James A.
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunnett, Jack
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Ashley, Jack
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Edge, Geoff
Judd, Frank


Atkinson, Norman
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Kaufman, Gerald


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kelley, Richard


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Kerr, Russell


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ennals, David
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Bates, Alf
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Kinnock, Neil


Bean, R. E.
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lambie, David


Beith, A. J.
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lamborn, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans John (Newton)
Lamond, James


Bidwell, Sydney
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Bishop, E. S.
Faulds, Andrew
Leadbitter, Ted


Blenkinsop. Arthur
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Boltomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Flannery, Martin
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lipton, Marcus


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Litterick, Tom


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Loyden, Eddie


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Ford, Ben
Luard, Evan


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Buchan, Norman
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Buchanan, Richard
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McCartney, Hugh


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Freeson, Reginald
McElhone. Frank


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Freud, Clement
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Campbell, Ian
George, Bruce
Mackenzie, Gregor


Canavan, Dennis
Gilbert, Dr John
Mackintosh, John P.


Cant, R. B.
Golding, John
Maclennan, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Gould, Bryan
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Carter, Ray
Gourlay, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Madden, Max


Cartwright, John
Grant, John (Islington C)
Magee, Bryan


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mahon, Simon


Clemitson, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hardy, Peter
Marks, Kenneth


Cohen, Stanley
Harper, Joseph
Marquand, David


Coleman, Donald
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Concannon, J. D.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Conlan, Bernard
Hatton, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.
Meacher, Michael


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hooley, Frank
Mendelson, John


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hooson, Emlyn
Mikardo, Ian


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Horam, John
Millan, Bruce


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Miller, Mrs Millie (llford N)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Boyle, Doug (Nelson)
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Huckfleld, Les
Molloy, William


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Moonman, Eric


Davidson, Arthur
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Deakins, Eric
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Newens, Stanley


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Janner, Greville
Noble, Mike


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Dempsey, James
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Ogden, Eric


Doig. Peter
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Orbach, Maurice

natural part of our arrangements for relationships between the police and the public. Therefore, I ask the House to give its support to the Bill on Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 222.

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Sandelson, Neville
Tuck, Raphael


Ovenden, John
Sedgemore, Brian
Urwin, T. W.


Padley, Walter
Selby, Harry
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Palmer, Arthur
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Pardoe, John
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Park, George
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Parker, John
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Ward, Michael


Parry, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Watkins, David


Pavitt, Laurie
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Watkinson, John


Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Weetch, Ken


Pendry, Tom
Sillars, James
Weitzman, David


Penhaligon, David
Silverman, Julius
Wellbeloved, James


Perry, Ernest
Skinner, Dennis
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Phipps, Dr Colin
Small, William
White, James (Pollok)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Whitehead, Phillip


Prescott, John
Snape, Peter
Whitlock, William


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Spearing, Nigel
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Price, William (Rugby)
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Radice, Giles
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Stoddart, David
Williams, Sir Thomas


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stott, Roger
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Swain, Thomas
Woodall, Alec


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Woof, Robert


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Roper, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Rose, Paul B.
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)



Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Tierney, Sydney
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Tinn, James
Mr. James Hamilton and


Rowlands, Ted
Tomlinson, John
Mr. Ted Graham



NOES


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony
Jopling, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Alison, Michael
Emery, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Arnold, Tom
Eyre, Reginald
Kershaw, Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fairgrieve, Russell
Kimball, Marcus


Awdry, Daniel
Farr, John
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Banks, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Bell, Ronald
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Knox, David


Benyon, W.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lane, David


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fookes, Miss Janet
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Biffen, John
Forman, Nigel
Lawrence, Ivan


Biggs-Davison, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Blaker, Peter
Fox, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Body, Richard
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lloyd, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fry, Peter
Loveridge, John


Bottomley, Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Luce, Richard


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
McCrindle, Robert


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Macfarlane, Neil


Brittan, Leon
Glyn, Dr. Alan
MacGregor, John


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Goodhart, Philip
Madel, David


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Goodlad, Alastair
Marten, Neil


Buck, Antony
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Mates, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Maude, Angus


Burden, F. A.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mawby, Ray


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Gray, Hamish
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Carlisle, Mark
Grist, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Grylls, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hall, Sir John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mills, Peter


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Miscampbell, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Cockcroft, John
Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector


Cope, John
Hayhoe, Barney
Montgomery, Fergus


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Robert
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Corrie, John
Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan, Geraint


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Crouch, David
Hunt, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Crowder, F. P.
Hurd, Douglas
Mudd, David


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Neave, Airey


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
James, David
Nelson, Anthony


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Neubert, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jessel, Toby
Normanton, Tom


Drayson, Burnaby
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Nott, John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Onslow, Cranley







Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Scott, Nicholas
Tebbit, Norman


Osborn, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, John (Harrow West)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Pattie, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Colin
Townsend, Cyril D.


Percival, Ian
Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Silvester, Fred
Tugendhat, Christopher


Prior, Rt Hon James
Sims, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Sinclair, Sir George
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Rathbone, Tim
Skeet, T. H. H.
Viggers, Peter


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Speed, Keith
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Spence, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Walters, Dennis


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Warren, Kenneth


Ridsdale, Julian
Sproat, Iain
Weatherill, Bernard


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stainton, Keith
Wells, John


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stanley, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Stokes, John
Younger, Hon George


Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Stradling, Thomas J.



Royle, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sainsbury, Tim
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Mr. Carol Mather and

St. John-Stevas, Norman
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
 Mr. Spencer Le Marchant

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

ANNUAL REPORT

The Annual Report of the Scottish Education Department shall provide information on the number of persons attending secondary school with particular reference to any changes in number and to any changes in teacher/ pupil ratios as a consequence of the passage of this Act.—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we shall take Amendment No. 20, in Schedule 1, page 8, line 3, at end insert—
Before making any direction, the Secretary of State shall furnish the governing body with all the information available to him concerning estimates of future school population recruitment of teachers and such other information as may be relevant".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The very simple and straightforward purpose of the clause is to make sure that information is available publicly regarding the effect of the passage of the Bill. The measure will

have a certain effect in relation to the dates on which people leave school, and this will affect the population in secondary schools in Scotland. Therefore, it is very important that this information should be available.
Amendment No. 20 relates to the changes which the Bill makes regarding the relationship between the Secretary of State and the governing bodies of teacher training colleges. It enables him to make certain directions to the governing bodies of these colleges. This is not something to which I object, but if directions are to be given, it is vitally important that all the information necessary and pertinent to their direction should be available as much to the governing bodies of teacher training colleges as to the Government.
The reason why I move the clause, and feel that this information is necessary both for the general public and the governing bodies of teacher training colleges in their dealings with the Secretary of State, is the crisis in Scottish education at present. Every hon. Member who represents a Scottish constituency knows that we are in a mess in education in Scotland at the moment, especially in relation to the numbers coming out of teacher training colleges this summer and the number of jobs available to them in schools this autumn.
I cannot illustrate this more dramatically than to quote from the front page of the Scottish Educational Journal—this is the most up-to-date information we have at the moment; if the Minister has any more information we would be glad to


hear it—which carried out a survey. This showed that the number of students leaving colleges with qualifications to enter the teaching profession in Scotland this summer was 5,472. However, it also showed that the number of jobs available at the time was only 2,962. Anyone can see that we have a considerable shortfall, of more than 2,000, between the number of those leaving colleges and the number of jobs available.
I speak for every Scottish Member of this House—on both sides, because concern about this situation is not limited to one side. Every hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency feels it because we have had numerous approaches from both individuals and groups on this matter. There are two particular groups which are especially concerned about it at present. The first group is those who won their university degrees, having decided on leaving school up to five years ago to go in for these courses, but now, having done so, cannot get a job. These people are badly disillusioned.
The second group is those who sought to enter the teaching profession through the special recruitment scheme. I can give an example from my constituency of a person in his middle 40s who was in a job in industry but gave it up in response to the Government's appeal and entered teacher training college. He will gain his qualifications this summer, but so far has been unable to find a job. This man has considerable family commitments. His son is attending university. Like most parents, he must make a contribution to supplement his son's grant. I hope that I have shown the great personal difficulty which people of this sort are encountering in Scotland.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I do not wish to undermine the hon. Gentleman's argument when I ask whether his constituent was unable to get a job only in the geographical area of his preference.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My constituent has been unable to get a job, full stop.
We hope that as time passes, and depending upon the situation in the West of Scotland, there will be an improvement in teacher recruitment. My own area of Tayside and the Grampian Region have been experiencing great diffi-

culty over teacher recruitment. These areas have been told not to recruit above present standards and to use wastage to attain the Red Book standard. Greater wastage must be allowed amongst teachers than in any recent year.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House, but he must put the record straight. The Grampion Regional Council began its reduction of standards in the city of Aberdeen long before there was any difficulty over Government expenditure. It did so of its own free choice.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not follow the hon. Gentleman. In the Grampian area, as in Tayside, there was a very high recruitment rate. It is now faced with allowing wastage to reduce staff to the Red Book standard, whereas before teachers were replaced as wastage took place. In this part of Scotland the problem is more serious than elsewhere because the total number of teachers will fall in absolute terms.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Member pay tribute to the Aberdeen education committee, which recruited well above the standards normally acceptable in this country? He said the Grampian Region was told to reduce teacher numbers, but the education committee had decided before any public expenditure difficulties—as a deliberate act of policy—to reduce the total complement of teachers.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That may be true. I wish the hon. Member was not so sensitive. I am not apportioning blame. I am merely describing the present situation.
I have been careful to say that every hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency is naturally and properly concerned about the human problem involved and that the pupil-teacher ratio will deteriorate in areas where recruitment has been above the Red Book standard in the past.
The situation is extremely serious, especially in areas like Grampian and Tayside. We had a teacher shortage a few years ago. We improved the pupil-teacher ratio, and it is very disappointing to see the position deteriorating again. That is what I deplore.

Mr. Norman Buchan: It does the hon. Gentleman credit that he is so keen to employ more teachers, but how will he pay for them? He has told us he would do it by cutting school milk and increasing the cost of school dinners. Does he still intend to deal with the problem in that way?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated what I shall be saying. I have recognised the problem facing the Government of employing teachers from training colleges at a time when public expenditure must be cut. The Government are putting pressure on areas like Grampian and Tayside to reduce staffing to the Red Book standard and are putting pressure on other areas to recruit only up to that standard. Unemployment among teachers from training colleges will total about 2,000
I condemn the Government because they are losing the opportunity to improve the pupil-teacher ratio. We have a surplus of teachers for the first time in many years and the situation could be improved if the Government showed a better sense of priorities in education expenditure. It is nonsense to spend an extra £1 million on extending free school milk when the money could be spent to employ more teachers—which would be much more beneficial to young people. That extra £1 million would have employed about another 250 teachers for a year. Does the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) think that the extra £1 million is better spent on free milk than on employing another 250 teachers? That is the choice. If he thinks it is better spent on milk, let him say so.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: The answer is "No". I think that money should be spent in both directions. I do not go around saying "Cut public expenditure". On the contrary, I object to the Government's strategy of cutting public expenditure. I think that milk should be free, school dinners should be kept down in price teachers should be employed.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Whatever the hon Gentleman may say with his voice, his feet voted in favour of cuts in public expenditure. People in Scotland cannot pay very much attention to what he says.

He is trying to eat his cake and have it. Although he has not been consistent in what he has done, at least he has been fairly consistent in what he has said—namely, that he is prepared to increase public expenditure to any level, even if it bankrupts the country. If that is the policy that he wants to follow, let him do so.
I believe that I have taken a rather more realistic point of view. Given the Government's education budget, I believe that the resources could be spent very much better. I have referred to school milk, but there are other examples. I understand that raising school meal charges from 15p to 20p would have given an income throughout the United Kingdom of about £40 million to £50 million. Such an increase would have given the Scottish education budget an extra income of about £5 million. We are talking in terms of another 1,250 teachers in Scotland. If the raising of school meal charges had been allowed to go forward, if the Government had not had to give away that hostage to buy their new social contract and if they had not been prepared to go forward with the provision of free milk and had used the money for education purposes, there would have been sufficient money available this year to employ about another 1,500 teachers in Scotland. In terms of Scotland's education budget, that would have met the crisis that we are now facing. In contrast to the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West, I believe that I am being realistic. I have demonstrated what the Government could do within the education budget.
Although we welcome the small things that the Secretary of State has said he hopes to use—for example, the job creation scheme, which I welcome and which I think is helpful—they will represent, as I understand it, only a small number of teachers. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet been able to tell us precisely how many teachers the measures he intends to use will produce, but they could be helpful and could raise the figures which I have mentioned.
The clause, if it is accepted, will enable the public in Scotland to judge better what the Government are doing should we face another crisis such as the one now before us. I have used this opportunity to explain what they are doing so that


the figures are known throughout Scotland. We must expose the weakness of the Government's actions and their lack of priorities. We must expose their lack of urgency and their lack of priorities in education spending in Scotland, in that they are not prepared to spend the money that is available in the interests of young people in Scotland and in the interests of improvement in Scotland. If we agree to the clause and the amendment, it will mean that if another situation such as the one before us arises following the passage of the Bill, the people of Scotland will be better able to judge the information that is available and the way the Government treat it. They will understand how they get their priorities wrong in the way that they put them forward in the Bill. I hope that the clause will go a small way towards putting that right.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am moved to speak on the amendment in view of what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has said about deploring the fact that in the Grampian and Tayside Regions, especially the Grampian Region, the number of teachers to be employed is no longer to be as high as it was. I find it difficult to accept the hon. Member's protestations about this, considering that for many years while I was a member of the Aberdeen Town Council I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), who was city treasurer at the time, spent many years fighting the Tories over the size of the education budget and beating them handsomely.
We increased our teacher supply because we thought it worth paying for. While the Tories of Aberdeen were going about shouting that the only important thing was keeping down the rates, we were prepared to argue that it was necessary to spend money locally to provide the best education. That is why I have always believed in public expenditure being as high as possible, and why I also accept that it must be paid for mainly through taxation. There may be difficulties about taxation, but there is no doubt that if we want new services we must pay for them.
The record should be put straight in terms of the Grampian Region. As soon as the new region, Tory-dominated and

Tory-controlled, took over the service of education—having lost the education battle for 20 years in the city of Aberdeen —the first thing it did was to determine that the policy it had failed to carry out in the minority would be carried forward in the majority. Before there were any public expenditure constraints it decided to cut down on the number of teachers employed in the schools in the city of Aberdeen.
The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns said that he deplored that fact. So do I. I would have been happier if at the time when the cuts were made—when the teaching profession in Aberdeen was seeking to send deputations to meet the Grampian Region Town Council to discuss the matter—the hon. Member had raised his voice to say that it was wrong that the teacher supply should be reduced. The Grampian council refused to see a deputation from the local teaching profession to discuss staffing levels; in fact, the council would not even put letters written by Members of Parliament before the education committee so that its members could better make up their minds. Nothing could change the attitude of the council.
Now the council shelters behind the public expenditure restraints and the difficulties that exist throughout Scotland. I would have thought more of the council if it had said that, leaving aside the question of public expenditure restraints, it believed that the Red Book standard plus 5 per cent. was right for Aberdeen. The council should not shelter behind public expenditure restraints. Nor should the hon. Member for North Angus and Means, because there are teaching difficulties at the moment, seek to lay all the blame on the Government. I have made very plain my views on the question of mature students who went into the teaching profession under the special recruiting scheme. I did so in a speech in the House just before we rose for the Whitsun Recess, and I shall not repeat what I then said.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) used to be called the Silent Senator from Dumfries. I do not see him here—[Interruption.] I am sorry; he is here. But he is still silent, except for his occasional "Hear hears" on the question of teacher recruiting, while his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus


and Mearns makes eloquent pleas on behalf of those who accepted the Government's appeal to join the teaching profession. The fact is that it was their Government to whom the people responded; it was they who carried on the special recruitment scheme and encouraged the people to come in. So theirs is the responsibility for not seeing far enough ahead.
I do not think that to publish information in the annual report of the Scottish Education Department is the best way of making that information available. My experience—I am sure that the Minister will bear this out—is that the information published in the annual report is far too late to be used as a basis for decisions in the future, because it is at least a year out of date. Even if reports are prepared at the end of the calendar or fiscal year to which they apply, they generally appear between six and nine months after that. That is no way to control public expenditure or to plan properly. We need information well in advance of such reports if we are to have a sensible education policy.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I support the official Opposition amendment because the situation in Scotland in education circles is causing a great deal of concern.
Having just listened to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), I feel deeply concerned that he of all people should acquiesce in a situation in which a Government are cutting back so rigidly on expenditure in Scotland that we can do nothing but level down education opportunity there. That is basically what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North has said. By supporting the Red Book standards and accepting them, he has acquiesced in a situation in which we are levelling down opportunities for working-class children in Scotland to rise through the problems that they face, to take opportunities in their hands and to rise to better things.
That is basically what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who cry loudest at present are saying. People such as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who vote in favour of expenditure cuts, and people such as the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), who do not have the courage of their convictions in order to vote

against the cuts, are the people who are doing down the working class of Scotland.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not need any lessons in public integrity from the hon. Lady. I do not acquiesce about levelling down the standards. If the hon. Lady thinks that by supporting the Tories and censure motions on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill she and her hon. Friends are doing a service to the working-class people of Scotland, she had better learn what politics is about.

Mrs. Bain: The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues wish to cloud a particular issue. They do not like to accept a situation in which honesty is being displayed because the truth always hurts when it comes to a Labour Government, as they are the least Socialist of Governments.
I refer Labour Members to what was said earlier this week by the major teachers' union in Scotland, the EIS, about the present situation:
The iron financial constraints placed upon local authorities by this Government.
Labour Members voted in favour of these financial constraints and forced local authorities into a situation in which in my constituency they are dismissing part-time teachers who have served the public well and looked after and encouraged children. They are forcing these people into a situation in which there is no employment available for them. They are supporting people who will not give employment opportunities to young students in my constituency who attend Notre Dame and Jordanhill. They will not give them opportunities.
I remind Labour Members that the major teachers' union in Scotland has said that the limit of 33 pupils per class is too high and that after August it will refer every class of over 30 to an adjudication panel. I accept that as being very relevant. I speak as an experienced teacher. The situation of 33 children in a class is not acceptable to the majority of teachers in Scotland. They wish to see a reduction in class sizes in order to give pupils decent education opportunities—to which, of course, the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire is opposed.
The people in this House not only refuse to accept the financial obligation of what they have done but refuse to accept


the moral obligations. Labour Members and Conservative Members have encouraged people to enter the teaching profession, but now they will not give them jobs. Young people were encouraged to stay on at school and to go into college, and some older people gave up secure employment to take higher studies at university and college, and now they are being given no opportunity to teach.
11.45 p.m.
The Government will not accept their moral obligations. They did not do so in the case of Biafra. Those who are crying loudest are the very people who lack real sincerity. They lack genuine concern for the young people in Scotland—and especially for the young children and the deprived people whom some of them claim to represent. I have in mind the children from the slums in Glasgow, whom they claim to represent, but who are given no chance to escape from the vicious spiral of educational deprivation. Hon. Members on the Government side sit with smug smiles on their faces, like latter-day Neros, while Rome burns.
Although it goes much against my heart to support the Conservatives in anything, at least the clause tries to look at the reality of the situation and do something about it. Those of my party who are here tonight will support the Conservatives on it.

Mr. Buchan: I had not intended to speak in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am very easily tempted.
We know that power without responsibility has been the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. In listening to the hon. Lady the Member for Dumbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) talking tonight about the 2,000 teachers, I could not help thinking that we could have done with a little of this pseudo-fire and pseudo-integrity 10 days ago, when we were talking in terms of tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland, and when the SNP Members voted in the Lobby with the Tories. We are deeply concerned because the shipbuilding industry is involved.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Will the hon. Lady repeat her point of order?

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but could we have some relevancy in this debate on Scottish education?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the Chair to decide at the appropriate time.

Mr. Buchan: It has been a wearisome experience for us to find ourselves continually smeared—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: You cannot stand opposition.

Mr. Buchan: As for relevancy, we have already had a reference to Biafra. We have to put up with unmitigated smears from the Bench opposite, and sometimes these smears should be replied to with truth. The truth is that the Scottish National Party, whose Members we have heard tonight, always exploit a populist issue. It was Jimmy Reid who once said that if they thought oil would be a cure for constipation they would be advocating Scottish oil—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we talking about oil now or about Scottish education?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to use his own arguments and to develop them. If the Chair feels that they are becoming irrelevant, the Chair will make the decision.

Mr. Buchan: I was using a metaphor in relation to constipation rather than dealing with oil as such. I want especially to deal with the question of smearing because of what has been said about my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).
The SNP talks about conviction, honesty and conscience. My hon. Friend happens to be the Member who resigned less than a year ago on the question of public expenditure. When we see one SNP Member with the courage, the conscience and the integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North —who went against his own party on an issue on which he felt deeply—we may be able to have some respect for such a Member. The truth is that on no single issue which required an element of courage because it was unpopular has the


SNP stood up to be counted. It has fought on every populist issue and has run from every unpopular issue. It has neither the courage of its convictions nor the courage—[Interruption.] With respect, I wish you would control some of your Back Benchers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not give instructions to the Chair.

Mr. Buchan: On the question of actual honesty by the hon. Members in the Scottish National Party, the hon. Lady clothed in white samite, mystic and wonderful, tells us about truth and honesty and then we see the distorted figures that they have been producing in the last two weeks. In another place I would have said they were lies but I cannot say that here.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: In respect of truth, the recent Strathclyde educational report points out that in some areas of Glasgow 99 per cent. of children have no qualifications or higher grades. Is that not another truth that the hon. Gentleman should look at?

Mr. Buchan: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman because he is one of the few hon. Members sitting on the SNP Bench who do not rely on smears and untruths. But the truth is that he is sitting on the same Bench and he knows about the distorted figures that we have had from the SNP over the past fortnight. That deals with their untruths.
I want to deal now with the propositions put forward by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). As I understand it the amendment is being brought forward as an excuse for an attack on the present position. Nothing else was said in his speech. The hon. Gentleman adduced no argument whatsoever in relation to the particular clause and its merits. He dealt only with the present situation. As we have had smears from the SNP, so we have had humbug and hypocrisy from the Tory benches. [Interruption.] They will get no smears from me. I reply to smears; I do not make them. I can quote them a smear. A reference was made to me by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East in the Cafeteria last week—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Cafeteria is not part of the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the argument.

Mr. Buchan: Nevertheless, it related to the House of Commons. The suggestion was that the Glasgow Herald reporter must have been banqueted in the bar. With all respect, it is ridiculous for Members of the Scottish Nationalist Party to suggest that other people frequent the bar, and for that particular party of all parties and that particular hon. Member of all Members to suggest that about me, of all people. On the contrary, my leg is pulled because I rarely go into the bar. That is what I mean by smears and untruths.

Mr. Welsh: On a point of order. Is this in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is developing his argument. If he goes too far the Chair will pull him up.

Mr. Buchan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Scottish Nationalist Party had not raised the question of relevancy I would not have kept speaking about it.
The truth is that the situation we deplore is actually caused by the inadequacy of planning or the failure of courage of the Tory Party four years ago. But that having been said, it remains the responsibility of our Government to deal with it. On this point—and only on this isolated point—the hon. Member is right. Money should be spent to employ these teachers. But to suggest that it should come from school milk—out-Thatchering Thatcher; talk about Herod!—and from school dinners is an argument which has been rejected by the students themselves. If the hon. Member does not believe me, he should speak to them, as I have done. They are evincing in their sit-ins and their actions a greater responsibility and a greater honesty than the whole Tory Front Bench. We have had enough of these general demands for cutting public expenditure and then going after every populist issue to increase public expenditure.
So much for the Tory view. But there is a strong view on these Benches that the Government must change their


policy. Yes, we voted with the Government. I would sooner have a Labour Government in power whose policy we can change than a Tory Government who want to slash public expenditure. We believe that the one hope for the people of this country is a Socialist Government.
The Government must have another look at this situation. The Secretary of State's arguments are not enough. I understand his difficulty but he is only toying with the problem. This problem is not the fault and responsibility of those who were induced to enter the special recruitment scheme or of those who are leaving in one year. I do not believe that the burden of this problem should fall on the backs of one year's output of students. Therefore, we demand a change in the policy. This is largely irrelevant to the amendment, but this is the argument which was adduced in its aid. Of course we want the information suggested in the amendment and the maximum knowledge with which we can work, but it lies ill on the lips of Tory Members to put forward this hypocrisy on the basis of a bogus new clause.

Mr. George Younger: I am sure that we are extremely gratified on this side to be told that we shall get the support of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) and her colleagues—although my pleasure was somewhat spoiled when she said that she regards Labour Members as not being Socialist enough for her, If they are not Socialist enough for her, I feel a chill run up my spine.
The hon. Lady's support is very welcome but I would suggest that her argument would have been much more effective if she had not called in question the motives of Labour Members. It is much better to call in question their policies or the choices they make, which is what I propose to do. I hope that she will accept that advice as well-meant.
Labour Members cannot get out of this situation as easily as they think. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) to say that this is all due to what happened four years ago, that it should all have been put right then. But the previous Govern-

ment's White Paper of 1973 foreshadowed some of this. My hon. Friend, whom he criticised for not completely cutting back on teacher training entry four years ago, was surely not expected to forecast then that there would be a Socialist Government who would so ruin the economy that it would run out of money. Alarming signals were raised at that time, but the teaching profession—and certainly Labour Members—would not listen to them.
12 midnight
The Government must make a clear statement of the present position. Whether or not what was done four years ago was right or wrong, it has been known for at least one year, if not two years, that this Government were running out of public money. Every newspaper has talked about it and everyone in the Government has known it. The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will not like it, but the Chancellor will have to cut public expenditure more. The hon. Member knows it, we know it and everyone else knows it, but the Chancellor cannot announce it now. So it is no use the Government pretending that this is a plot by someone else, that it has nothing to do with them. At the very least, the Minister might explain why no action was taken even a year ago to start making bigger reductions in entry to the colleges. The Government knew that they were running out of money, but they sat around and did nothing. We should be grateful to the Secretary of State for looking at the alternatives and for his willingness at least to use the job-creation scheme to bring about some improvement.
The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West accused us of humbug. I do not think that he is right. He would have been fairer to say that there was a difference of opinion on education priorities between the Opposition and the Government. The Government think it more important to extend the availability of free school milk and keep down the cost of school meals than to give jobs to young teachers. They must think that they are right. We think that they are wrong. We think it more important to give jobs to young people who have done their teacher training than to make the sort of changes in education spending that the Government propose.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least give us the credit of having a different view of priorities and not accuse us of humbug when we are at least prepared, which he is not, to do the painful thing of trying to find some money for them. The hon. Gentleman is trying to have it all ways—he will vote for additional cuts in Government expenditure, support the young teachers in trouble, and try to spend money on extending the provision of free school milk and school meals. He tries to have it all at once. He is misguided. I do not question his motives, but he would accuse us of not being honest or straightforward about what we propose.
We are prepared to find the money, which is not easy. We are going to have to defend our decision on priorities, which is that it is more important to give these young teachers jobs than to pursue the Government's education priorities. I hope that the House, even if it does not agree with us, will at least concede that ours is an honest and straightforward point of view.
I hope that the Minister realises that we expect him to give us a clear report about the teacher-employment situation. New Clause 1 is designed to ensure that more information is made available to those who are to be involved in discussion on the question of courses at colleges of further education or in teacher training. Surely we can all agree that at some point there has not been enough information, or that, if there has, it has not been given due weight. Surely we can all at least accept that if there has clearly not been enough information we can do something in the Bill to ensure that it will be available in future to as many people as possible and thus avoid such a situation arising again.
Let us be under no illusion. What has been done has blighted the careers of these young people before they have even started. I believe that the Government accept some responsibility for these young people when they accept them into training in the first place. I do not think that the desire and need of the Government to cut expenditure invalidates that responsibility. It is simply not on to cut these young people off in the course of training, because one is not really a trained teacher until one has started teaching. It is better at least to stop

their training after a year than to let them finish the course and cut them off then.
I hope that the Minister will give the House an up-to-date report of the situation and an estimate of the number of teachers who will now get jobs because of steps which the Secretary of State is prepared to take. What is the Minister's attitude to those authorities which are reducing the number of teachers not because of expenditure generally but because their own resources are insufficient?

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirlingshire): I had not intended to take part in the debate but I must reply to the provocative remarks which have been made. I suspect that the clause was tabled to enable a debate to take place on the general situation and particularly on the alleged surplus of teachers. If we admit that a surplus exists the prime responsibility for the miscalculation which caused it must be taken by the Opposition because they were in Government when the children who are now in school were born.

Mr. Younger: Will the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) explain how any previous Conservative Government could have known that there would be a Socialist Government which would run out of money?

Mr. Canavan: The Opposition base their case not just on a shortage of money but on a surplus of teachers. They claim that there was a miscalculation. If there is, they are responsible because they were in office when these children were born. They should have done the necessary sums to avoid the present situation.
I used the term "alleged surplus" because I do not believe that there is a real surplus of teachers. There would be jobs for teachers to do if class sizes were reduced. The numbers in the Red Book and Circular 819 are not optimum numbers. I hoped that the unions concerned, including the EIS, show more guts by refusing to take classes with a flexible ceiling of 39.
Even the Prime Minister seemed to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) when he said that the alleged surplus of teachers would disappear if class sizes


were reduced to 30 or less. The Prime Minister said that that was all very well but asked where the money was to come from.
We know how the Opposition would obtain the money. They would take it from the children. They would take the money out of the mouths of the children through school milk and school meals. Those are their priorities. Even to suggest that is shocking. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said that students who are threatened with unemployment would reject that suggestion out of hand.
Ten Scottish Labour hon. Members recently visited Jordanhill College of Education and discussed the issue in detail with the Governor, staff and students. Not one of the students came up with the ludicrous Tory suggestion that we should cut school milk and meals to provide jobs for the teachers.
On Friday my hon. Friend the UnderSecretary—the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) —and I visited Callendar Park College, where we addressed the students and had a very courteous reception considering the circumstances and the unpopularity of the Government in this situation. We also answered many questions, in the course of which it was suggested by a small faction—one individual, I suspect —that we should cut overseas aid to provide jobs for student teachers. That suggestion was howled down by the majority of the students. The vast majority of student teachers have a far more developed social conscience than the Tories. They do not fall for such rubbish and do not call for cuts in areas of need, particularly overseas development or school milk and meals. Many parents of the children concerned are unemployed and very much in need.
It was also a bit thick for Tory Members, joined by SNP MPs to start laying into former Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—the former Under-Secretary in charge of education—and Renfrewshire, West, both of whom resigned from the Government because of their conscientious objection to certain aspects of Government policy. It was most dishonourable for Opposition Members to chide them

because they did not vote against the Government on the public expenditure cuts.
I speak as one who did not go into the Lobby with the Government on that night, and who took a great deal of abuse from many people, including Ministers. But I tell SNP MPs that some of us on the Labour Benches have to think very carefully about what to do to express our opposition to a particular aspect of Government policy. It is not just a question of going willy-nilly into whatever Lobby we please in an irresponsible manner, irrespective of whether it will cause a General Election. Much as I oppose the cuts and the priorities in the White Paper, wild horses would not have dragged me into the same Lobby as those hypocrites who were in the same Lobby as the SNP, hypocrites because they were calling out for more savage cuts in public expenditure.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman is using the word "hypocrites" as a generality, but I would prefer that he did not. It is an unparliamentary expression.

Mr. Canavan: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not think that the term is completely—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to believe that children right up to the end of their school career should receive milk? Is it not the case that his Government—

Mr. David Lambie: The hon. Lady's children went to fee-paying schools.

Mr. Hector Monro: All right, grandad.

12.15 a.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is it not the case that Labour Members voted to take away milk from secondary school children, and that the Opposition voted to take away milk from primary school children? What is the hon. Gentleman's position on school milk?

Mr. Canavan: I am sure that SNP Members call out for not only free milk but free North Sea oil for the benefit of all children, adults and old-age pensioners but they do not have to put their money where their mouth is. It is being said


that the additional money spent on school milk in this Bill could be better used in employing student teachers. I think that that is nonsense, and I think that student teachers would agree. I thought that the House should have an explanation from me and from others who have expressed disapproval of Government strategy on expenditure cuts but refuse to go into the Lobby with Conservative Members, who are crying out for even more savage cuts.
There is nothing new in SNP Members appearing in the same Lobby as Tories like the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and Dumfries (Mr. Monro). I am sure that they would feel equally at home as they did 11 days ago when they tore up the telegrams sent to them by trade unionists and entered the Lobby with Tory Members. They obviously did not give tuppence for the job prospects of shipyard workers on Clydeside. It is no surprise in those circumstances that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) got a pretty rough reception by shop stewards at Robb Caledon in Dundee.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: As one of the patient hon. Members of this House, may I ask whether we cannot have a little relevance brought into this debate. After all, we are supposed to be discussing Scottish education—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will take care of this matter. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) was developing his argument.

Mr. Canavan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I do not know whether you heard, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the remark of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing), who implied that you were failing to control the debate. I am sure that she would wish to withdraw that suggestion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I heard no such remark. I call Mr. Canavan.

Mr. Canavan: I am about to conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to emphasise to the Government the need for action in this matter in regard to the prospects of teacher unemployment. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman

the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as his Under-Secretary of State are here, in view of their educational responsibilities.
I remember the time when the present Secretary of State was in the shoes of the under-Secretary of State in charge of education in Scotland and I know that he has the cause of Scottish education close to his heart. I know that action has already been announced in terms of job creation money to help teachers to obtain jobs, and we are grateful for small mercies, but that is only a superficial scratch on the surface of the problem. Obviously more is required to be done. The difficulty lies in the fact that the Government have had the wrong priorities. They are spending far too much money on useless matters, such as defence. We can see the discrepancy when we examine the manifesto on which the Secretary of State and I fought the 1974 General Election. When we look at the White Paper and see that by the late 1970s we shall be spending more on defence than in the last financial year but less on housing and education how can we square that with what we set out in our 1974 General Election manifesto?
I realise that the Secretary of State is only one voice in the Cabinet. I hope that he uses it to express his disapproval of these priorities and tries to bring about a shift of resources in Scottish education to provide much-needed jobs for these teachers and, more important, a better education service for the children of working-class parents whom we were elected to represent. If the Secretary of State fails in this it will not only be the SNP and the Tories who will be complaining. There will be many good Labour supporters throughout the country who will be expressing their disapproval in the strongest possible terms.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I have two short questions to put to the Minister. Were the Scottish Education Department forecasts of teacher recruitment based on reducing class sizes below the Red Book standard or not? If they were based on the Red Book standard, clearly there was a mistake made in forecasting. If it is the case that the SED has been making inaccurate forecasts, what steps is the hon. Gentleman taking to correct this?
Secondly, taking the point made by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), can the hon. Gentleman quantify, in financial terms, the difference between having to pay unemployment benefit to teachers and making money available to allow them to teach, thus contributing to the improvement of education by a reduction in class sizes?

Mr. Monro: I am glad that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has brought the debate back to some sort of sensibility after the tirade of the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), which did not do anything to help the present crisis or produce any suggestions for the future. I would like to answer one point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who was surprised to find me in the Chamber. No doubt he, like his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), would have continued his attack in my absence. What the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North needs to remember is that while Aberdeen Burgh—

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Mr. Robin F. Cook (Edinburgh, Central) rose—

Mr. Monro: Let me make my point. The hon. Gentleman is getting excited. He knows quite well that in the Adjournment debate in question he went out of his way to attack me when I was not in the Chamber.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that on that occasion I spoke only 14 minutes after he had spoken. It was not my fault that he left the Chamber after he ceased to speak. It was of his own volition. It is quite in order for an intervener in a debate to wait and listen to the following speech.

Mr. Monro: I waited to hear the following speech, but not the speech of the hon. Gentleman, who I did not know was to add his usual words of criticism.
Of course the pupil-teacher ratio in Aberdeen Burgh was the lowest in Scotland, at about 12·2 in 1973 and 11·9 in 1972. While that was highly commendable in terms of Aberdeen, it certainly was detrimental to the distribution of teachers throughout Scotland. Other areas in the West, Stirlingshire, Lanarkshire and Ren-

frewshire, were running with a ratio of 18 to 1 to 20 to 1. With a falling pupil population in all areas of Scotland there was something to be said for the number of teachers in Aberdeen declining. The hon. Gentleman is making an unnecessary point, certainly one that is not valid in this debate.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am in some bad odour in the city of Aberdeen because, when I was Minister, I put forward the view that Aberdeen should not continue to be above strength while there were such severe teacher shortages in the West of Scotland. I argued that one of the priorities of Socialism was that there should be increasing standards throughout the country. The position is changed now. We are not dealing with teacher shortages and the need to transfer teachers from areas of admittedly high standards to areas of lower standards. We are now dealing with a position when teachers cannot be employed. It does not make sense to reduce the number of teachers in the city of Aberdeen. The point I was making was that the new Tory-controlled education authority was reducing the number of teachers for reasons of policy—to reduce financial expenditure—and not for any altruistic motive.

Mr. Monro: Perhaps in winding up the Minister could tell us the pupil/teacher ratio in secondary education in the Grampian Region. If it is 14:1 or 13:1, the hon. Gentleman has not got a very good case. If it is 15:1 on the Red Book standards, there may be more merit in his argument.
Tonight we are considering the steps which could be taken to alleviate the situation in secondary education. We want to know why the Government did not take more drastic steps in 1974–75 to limit the intake of secondary applicants to the colleges of education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) said, it was laid down clearly in the 1972 White Paper that in primary and secondary education there would have to be a limitation on the number of entrants to the colleges. That limitation was started in the intake of 1972–73, and significantly carried forward in 1973–74, when the secondary intake was reduced by 13 per cent. and the primary intake by a significant number as well. It is a matter of great concern that with the


situation which has developed today, particularly in relation to secondary teachers, the intake last September for 1975–76 went up by more than 300 over the 1974–75 figure. Surely the Minister must have had the figures at his finger-tips last year, and realised the need for a much more drastic cut-back in the colleges of education and the teaching associations. I know that it is not easy to deal with either body, but it was his duty to do so, and he fell short—particularly in relation to the secondary intake of a year ago—by not having a much more significant reduction in 1974 as a whole. In that year the reduction was only 6·9 per cent.
Again, while the primary situation has been developing markedly in the last two years, here also the intake last September was up on the 1974–75 intake. The Minister really has failed lamentably to realise what has been happening over the last two years. This is a failure for which he must answer tonight. He must tell us why he took no drastic action when he had the figures. The SED had figures for the increase in the school population up to 1977–78, for a static year in 1978–79, and then a decrease into the 1980s. We want to know what figure was set for the intake for primary and secondary applicants in the current session. While the Minister did give a measure of provision for nursery education to local authorities in the current year, it was a pretty drastic cut on the projections in the 1972 White Paper. The nursery cut has meant the loss of a great many teaching jobs in Scotland.
12.30 a.m.
It is my impression that there has been a bigger than ever cutback in PE teachers for the coming year. I hope that the Minister will have something constructive to say on this score. There seem to be three main areas of shortage. One is in music. I accept that little can be done to move teachers quickly into that sphere. It is not something that a teacher can learn quickly; he must have a calling for it. There is, however, a chance that something can be done in the sector dealing with business studies. There is a shortage of teachers in this sector. It is posible to give teachers a good grounding in business studies to help reduce that shortage. Can the

Minister do something more to equip teachers who are qualified in maths and science to switch to technical studies? There is a serious shortage here.
We must try to cope with the overall surplus of teachers by moving them from the subject they may have learned into these areas of shortage for the coming year. I hope too that the Minister will consider encouraging those over 65 to retire to make way for those who have recently qualified.
My hon. Friends and I could give any number of examples of where we would make cuts in expenditure to save money which could be devoted to teachers' salaries. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire knows that those who required milk in the past whether on grounds of income or for medical reasons, were always able to obtain it. There was no need for his heart-burning attitude. It was his Government who cut milk for secondary schools and my Government felt justified in saying that certain classes in the primary sector would have to give it up as well. The hon. Gentlemans argument fell as flat as his speech. We want a constructive answer from the Minister, not the razzmatazz that we heard from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire.

Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: It gives me great pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), with his great expertise in this subject, and to pay respects to him for what he did for education in Scotland when we were in Government. I wish also to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr Younger) on the question of priorities.
We are having this debate only because the Government have run out of money. It began with their buying of two General Elections with grossly inflationary wage settlements, followed by the wrong priorities, such as setting up the BNOC and now seeking to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. These moves will cost thousands of millions of pounds which would be better used in education.
My hon. Friends have said that it might be better to look to items like school meals and milk instead of having unemployed school teachers. With the


present level of family allowances and supplementary benefits and the need for some perental responsibility, can hon. Members really say that it is not right to look at this type of expenditure before we cut down on the employment of young school teachers? I do not think there are many children starving through lack of milk or food in this country, though no doubt hon. Members opposite will seek to bring cases to our attention.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, if we had handled the situation differently we could now be employing 1,500 more teachers. It is always the same with Labour Governments. Then never get the priorities right. We shall continue to get dogma instead of the employment of young teachers.
As long as this Government are in power, the people will be given bread and circuses while the real issues are ignored.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): A bad cold and the need to make progress on this Bill prevent me from responding as I should like to this debate, especially as we have an unusually high attendance for a Scottish debate. I hope this is an indication of deep interest in Scottish affairs which will continue for the rest of this Session and into the next.
We have heard nothing about the clause and the amendment. I wish we had heard a little about the clause. Were I to attempt to respond to it, I should get a very poor hearing from the Opposition. They tabled the clause to get information on the present employment position of student teachers in Scottish colleges. I do not fault them for that.
I hope the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) will not think it remiss of me if I do not give a long, detailed answer about the clause and the amendment. He need have no fears about consultation. Government Ministers will always provide information. A feature of the Committee stage was the tremendous amount of information we provided for hon. Members so that they could argue their case against the Government. The representative of ALCES, one of the organisations representing lecturers, has said that he was content with the information with which

he was provided. The information given to hon. Members and the colleges was as full as possible, and this information will always be provided by the Government.
Anyone who follows our Press handouts will know that we publish each December the pupil-teacher ratio and the total number of teachers. At a Press conference when the figures were announced last December, I indicated that an extra 1,000 primary school teachers and 1,000 secondary school teachers would be going into our schools this year. Those are significant figures.
Expressions like "Circular 819" and "Red Book standard" may seem like mumbo-jumbo to hon. Members from south of the border. The circular deals with primary education, and the red book has nothing to do with Chairman Mao but, rather, refers to secondary schools. I hope that will be understood by hon. Members in England—including those who may be Scots by birth.
In the interests of making progress, I should try to respond to some of the contributions that have been made this evening. I begin by referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro). I must say that I feel extremely sorry for the hon. Gentleman. His hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) made a gallant attempt—but failed—to justify his hon. Friend's activities when he was an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with responsibilities for education. He should accept—I do not claim infallibility and I do not think that the hon. Member for Dumfries would wish to claim it—that during 1973, when the primary teachers now leaving the colleges went in as students, the wrong judgment was made. I hope he will recognise that my right hon. Gentleman has taken the bull by the horns in reducing the intake into our colleges this year. It has been a very unpopular decision, but my right hon. Friend recognises that to put young people into our colleges this year would only be training them to be unemployed.
We must recognise that the birth rate in Scotland has been dropping dramatically. Between 1975–76 and 1980–81 we shall have over 100,000 fewer primary pupils in Scottish schools.

Mr. Monro: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that I was wrong way back in


1973, was it not five times more wrong in 1974 and 1975, when the trend was staring him in the face, for him to take the wrong decision?

Mr. McElhone: I am sorry that the memory of the hon. Gentleman is at fault. I was not in office in 1974 and 1975. Nevertheless, I take collective responsibility for the decisions of my predecessors.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read a newspaper in the Chamber?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): If I happened to see an hon. Member reading a newspaper, it would not be in order.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: It is the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).

Mr. McElhone: I am only sorry that the furore over the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill has led to this type of debate.
The hon. Member for Dumfries claims that there is a shortage of teachers for business studies. I must confess that I cannot answer that claim. I shall look into the matter. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it will not be possible to change as rapidly as he and others would like to the training of teachers for technical subjects. I tell the House that there is now a surplus supply of PE teachers. The hon. Gentleman also asked for the college intake figures this year. They have been announced by my right hon. Friend, but I shall repeat them for the record—namely, 1,450 for primary schools and 2,700 for secondary schools.
Contrary to the views of the Opposition, the fact is that in our Scottish schools we have the best pupil-teacher ratio that we have ever had. As regards the area that I represent in Glasgow and the areas that are represented by colleagues in the west of Scotland, which have suffered part-time education for 25 years, the House will be glad to know that the Director of Education for Strathclyde said on Friday last that we shall see the end of part-time education in these deprived areas for the first time for over a quarter of a century. That is a significant advance. There will still be a shortage of Scottish teachers in some

subjects that have been mentioned—technical subjects and mathematics. We have been going as far abroad as Canada to try to persuade people to come here and teach in Scottish schools. We have to point out to English Members that there has been a reluctance in the past for teachers to come from the well-staffed areas of Grampian and Tayside to teach in the West of Scotland. Hon. Members who represent constituencies in the West of Scotland know this. We have tried desperately hard. The Director of Education for Strathclyde went to Tayside and Grampian this year to try to encourage teachers to come down.
12.45 a.m.
As for pupil-teacher ratios, the average for primary schools is 22.3 and for secondary schools 15.1. I do not come here tonight with an easy panacea for the problem of those teachers who will find it difficult to get jobs. I am appalled at anyone being unemployed, and I make no apologies for the present situation. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend has been taking certain initiatives, which have been announced and have been commented upon by hon. Members, in connection with job creation, the over-65s, and other activities. We must recognise that there is no easy panacea for the problem.

Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister accept that a logical way of using the surplus teachers from our colleges in Scotland would be to employ more teachers in the West of Scotland, in areas of deprivation, to compensate for the years of deprivation that many people have suffered in the past decade and to make sure that they leave school with adequate qualifications?

Mr. McElhone: We are well aware of that problem, but I must point out that the hon. Lady does Scotland no justice—and she certainly does the teaching profession no good—by the wild allegations she made tonight. I have chastised her on previous occasions. I say with some respect and courtesy—I treat all ladies with respect and courtesy—that the hon. Lady knows that in debates in which I was involved when I was dealing with health matters she made allegations about staffing in mental hospitals in Scotland which were totally wrong. She made a


statement regarding hypothermia which was totally wrong. Her figures for cuts in Scottish expenditure are wrong, and she knows it. Members of the SNP must try to get some accuracy and honesty into their arguments, or they will become members of a bankrupt party.
I have attempted to cover the points made by the Opposition in the debate this evening. I have no doubt that what I have said will not be acceptable to them, but I do not stand here to give any glib promises or to offer any easy panacea for an extremely difficult problem—a problem which, as far as we are concerned, was created in the main by the Conservative Party when in Government. Hon. Members opposite should at least recognise that and respond to the efforts being made by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am glad that on this occasion we have had a large attendance of Members from England and Wales as well as Scotland, because what we have heard tonight is one of the most shameful replies ever heard in the House of Commons. Time after time hon. Members on both sides of the House have emphasised the desperately serious situation in Scotland, where teacher unemployment is being deliberately created as a result of Government policy. Questions have been asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but all that we have had from the Minister was an indication that he supported the advertising for teachers in Canada, even though it seems that we shall have thousands unemployed in Scotland, and even though he must know that the starting salary for a teacher in Canada today is $11,000.
The Minister said that there would be consultation about redundancy and that he would give information. The one piece of information that has been requested by several hon. Members is an indication of the number of teachers who might be unemployed this year. On that the Minister said nothing. He merely said that he had had a Press conference in which he had told us some interesting things.
The Minister asked who was to pay for all this. He said "Blame the Tories." He wanted to blame my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and

those who were responsible for ensuring that for the first time in history, as he admitted, we would have an end to part-time education in Scotland. If there is one person who deserves credit for that bit of good news it is my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries. In the good old days of Tory Government we recruited sufficient students to remove the scourge of part-time education.
What is the Minister doing about the situation himself? He said that this all happened in 1973. But what happened with the intake only one year ago? Despite this apparent surplus of teachers, which the Minister said was apparent in 1973, from the most recent figures the Government this session have actually increased the number of students entering the colleges, from 2,400 to 2,493. Therefore, if it was obvious in 1973, one wonders why the Government increased the intake to the colleges.
We know the real reason. It was spelled out clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). It is simply that the Government have got the economy into a mess. They have run out of money, and as a direct result of that they are having to put teachers out of work and to deprive Scotland of a unique opportunity to improve education standards.
There have been a number of good speeches in the debate. I always listen with great care to what is said by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). They at least had the courage of their convictions and resigned from the Government because they deplored the Government's policies. In the case of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, it was on the subject of education. What I remember, however, is that when the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North was dealing with some of these complex issues, the one person from the Back Benches who was repeatedly urging him to spend more and give more resources to health and education was the Minister, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone), who has now given us such a woefully inadequate answer.
What should be done? We were asked quite clearly by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West whether we think that we have an obligation. The Opposition


certainly believe that we have a clear and absolute obligation to those teachers who were recruited into the colleges with the prospect of employment. We have a special obligation to those coming within the special recruitment scheme.
The Opposition are not irresponsible enough to call for increased spending straight—without proposing reductions. We have proposed alternatives. We have said that it would make more sense to employ the teachers and to cut down the increase proposed by the Government on school milk and to go ahead with the increase in school meal charges. By going ahead with those two increases we could employ 1,250 teachers who would otherwise be on the scrap heap.
However, the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) wanted to go outside this. When I heard him calling the EIS gutless, I thought that it was shameful. If there is anything like a gutless flounder, it is the hon. Gentleman. He said "I shall oppose the Government and vote against them, but on no account shall I bring about a General Election". He said "Let us go ahead and cut down on defence spending". What kind of cuts was he suggesting? Was it the Polaris base? That is probably what he was suggesting. In fact, it would automatically create 4,000 unemployed Scots if the Polaris base were closed down. Is it really suggested that 4,000 people should be made unemployed in order to create jobs for 1,250 teachers?
There are many suggestions that we could put forward. The Government have been flagrantly extravagant in the money they have spent on nationalisation schemes which will not save one job.

Division No. 163
AYES
12.55 a.m.


Adley, Robert
Bulmer, Esmond
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aitken, Jonathan
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Arnold, Tom
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Carlisle, Mark
Emery, Peter


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Banks, Robert
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Eyre, Reginald


Beith, A. J.
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fairgrieve, Russell


Biffen, John
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Cockcroft, John
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Blaker, Peter
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Body, Richard
Cope, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter
Corrie, John
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Costain, A. P.
Fox, Marcus


Braine, Sir Bernard
Crawford, Douglas
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Brittan, Leon
Critchley, Julian
Freud, Clement


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Crouch, David
Fry, Peter


Bryan. Sir Paul
Crowder, F. P.
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Buck, Antony
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Budgen, Nick
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Glyn, Dr. Alan

The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West talked about aircraft and shipbuilding nationalisation and how this would save jobs. I wonder if he has had any talks recently with steel workers in Scotland? They would have a different tale to tell him about how nationalisation loses and destroys jobs.

As many hon. Members have said, we have a serious and difficult problem before us. We have the prospect of certainly more than 1,000 Scottish teachers being unemployed—perhaps 2,000. We do not know exactly how many. These are teachers who need not be unemployed. They are teachers for whom we have a special obligation.

We have a unique opportunity further to improve Scottish teaching standards. Here we have a Minister who spent all his time on the Back Benches calling for more spending on education and on social work, and who is at present personally in charge of a policy of deliberately creating teacher unemployment and of cutting down home helps and school crossing patrols.

We should not only vote for the clause as a gesture of our absolute abhorrence of the Government's policies. We should do it as an indication of our contempt for a Minister who is not prepared to stand up and be counted when his policies are creating misery and unemployment in the country he represents.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 257.

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Macfarlane, Neil
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
MacGregor, John
Scott, Nicholas


Goodhew, Victor
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Marten, Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Colin


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mather, Carol
Shersby, Michael


Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray
Sims, Roger


Griffiths, Eldon
Mayhew, Patrick
Sinclair, Sir George


Grist, Ian
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grylls, Michael
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Hall, Sir John
Mills, Peter
Speed, Keith


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman
Spence, John


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Roger
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Hannam, John
Monro, Hector
Sproat, Iain


Hastings, Stephen
Montgomery, Fergus
Stainton, Keith


Hayhoe, Barney
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Henderson, Douglas
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stanley, John


Hicks, Robert
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Higgins, Terence L.
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hooson, Emlyn
Mudd, David
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Hordern, Peter
Neave, Airey
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Nelson, Anthony
Stradling, Thomas J.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, John
Normanton, Tom
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hurd, Douglas
Nott, John
Tebbit, Norman


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Onslow, Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


James, David
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Jenkin, Rt Hn P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Osborn, John
Thompson, George


Jessel, Toby
Page, John (Harrow West)
Townsend, Cyril D.


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Penhaligon, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Percival, Ian
Viggers, Peter


Jopling, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Kershaw, Anthony
Rathbone, Tim
Walters, Dennis


Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Warren, Kenneth


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Weatherill, Bernard


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Reid, George
Wells, John


Kitson, Sir Timorthy
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Welsh, Andrew


Knox, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lane, David
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Lawrence, Ivan
Rifkind, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Younger, Hon George


Lloyd, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)



Loveridge, John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Luce, Richard
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Mr. W. Benyon and


MacCormick, Iain
Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Fred Silvester.


McCrindle, Robert
Sainsbury, Tim





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Campbell, Ian
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Anderson, Donald
Canavan, Dennis
Dempsey, James


Archer, Peter
Cant, R. B.
Doig, Peter


Armstrong, Ernest
Carmichael, Neil
Dormand, J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Cartwright, John
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkinson, Norman
Clemitson, Ivor
Dunn, James A.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Cohen, Stanley
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Bates, Alf
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Edge, Geoff


Bean, R. E.
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Conlan, Bernard
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ennals, David


Bishop, E. S.
Corbett, Robin
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Evans John (Newton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cryer, Bob
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dalyell, Tam
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Davidson, Arthur
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Buchanan, Richard
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Deakins, Eric
Ford, Ben


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Forrester, John


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)







Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Freeson, Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sandelson, Neville


George, Bruce
McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


Gilbert, Dr John
Madden, Max
Selby, Harry


Golding, John
Magee, Bryan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Gould, Bryan
Mahon, Simon
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Gourlay, Harry
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marks, Kenneth
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marquand, David
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Hardy, Peter
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Small, William


Harper, Joseph
Maynard, Miss Joan
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Meacher, Michael
Snape, Peter


Heffer, Eric S.
Mendelson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Millan, Bruce
Stoddart, David


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stott, Roger


Huckfield, Les
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Molloy, William
Strauss, Rt Hn G. R.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Moonman, Eric
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Swain, Thomas


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tierney, Sydney


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Newens, Stanley
Tinn, James


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Noble, Mike
Tomlinson, John


John, Brynmor
Oakes, Gordon
Tuck, Raphael


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ogden, Eric
Urwin, T. W.


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Orbach, Maurice
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Ovenden, John
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Judd, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Kaufman, Gerald
Park, George
Ward, Michael


Kelley, Richard
Parker, John
Watkins, David


Kerr, Russell
Parry, Robert
Watkinson, John


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Pavitt, Laurie
Weetch, Ken


Kinnock, Neil
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Wellbeloved, James


Lambie, David
Pendry, Tom
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lamborn, Harry
Perry, Ernest
White, James (Pollok)


Lamond, James
Phipps, Dr Colin
Whitehead, Phillip


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Prescott, John
Whitlock, William


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Radice, Giles
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Litterick, Tom
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Williams, Sir Thomas


Lomas, Kenneth
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Loyden, Eddie
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Luard, Evan
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Robinson, Geoffrey
Woodall, Alec


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roderick, Caerwyn
Woof, Robert


McCartney, Hugh
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McElhone, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roper, John



Mackenzie, Gregor
Rose, Paul B.
Mr. Ted Graham and

Mackintosh, John P.
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. A. W. Stallard.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

COMMENCEMENT OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE

Mr. McElhone: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, after '(1)', insert Subject to subsection (7) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following amendments:

Government Amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 8, leave out from the beginning to 'a' in line 10 and insert 'fix'.

Government Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (2).

Government Amendment No. 9.

Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 15, leave out from 'shall' to 'the' in line 18 and insert 'fix'.

Government Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.

Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (5).

Government Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16.

Mr. McElhone: This is a complex group of amendments. The Opposition said in Committee that they would like five years and six months as the age for commencing school written into the Bill. We had a long debate on this at our first sitting. In response to many pleas, particularly from the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), I undertook to write into the Bill that a child should not be over the age of five years and six months when commencing school. In the interest of progress and in view of the lateness of the hour, I will conclude.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he moved the amendment, but he owes us rather more of an explanation. [Interruption.] It is unfortunate that many hon. Members opposite were not members of the Standing Committee on the Bill. We had a big debate on this matter, when the Government gave certain assurances. I am sure that the Prime Minister would like to go to bed, but Scottish education is important to us and we and the Scottish people wish to see these matters debated.
Whilst I welcome one assurance that the hon. Gentleman gave about the age at which a child should be starting school, he has overlooked an important and wider range of discussion in Committee. He said then that he would discuss with the Scottish local authorities the question of the authority of the Secretary of State over local education authorities on schemes they might have for the dates of commencement at school. The amendments under discussion raise the whole principle of the wider relationship between the Secretary of State and the education authorities.
The Bill means that local education authorities, in deciding any schemes for commencement dates, may be required by the Secretary of State to submit them to him for his approval, for representations, and so on. We were concerned that this might take away some of the autonomy given to local authorities under the Local Government Act 1973, and we were not satisfied that such power was necessary. We thought the matter might

be better left to the local education authorities.
In view of the hon. Gentleman's assurance in Committee, we withdrew our amendments on the understanding that he would get the views of the local education authorities on the subject, but he has not told us tonight what discussions he has had. He has simply spoken on one rather narrow point, for which I thank him, but we would like to know the views of the local education authorities on the wider issue of their relationship with the Secretary of State on the question of school commencement dates. We reserve our position on our own amendments until we have had an answer on this point.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. McElhone: I will try to meet the hon. Gentleman's request. We had a long debate on this subject in Committee, when it was impressed upon me that if the latest starting age for school was five years and six months it should be written into the Bill. I agreed to reconsider the point, and this amendment is the result. I agree that the drafting is complex, but I could not make it any simpler.
We have now accepted that discretion should be with the local authorities. A transitional period of three years has been accepted—it particularly affects Tayside—and that has been welcomed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The three-year transitional period allows time for those authorities which have difficulties with a single starting date. I hope the House will accept my explanation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: With the leave of the House I say that it is unfortunate that the Minister did not give that explanation before because these are important issues. We would make faster progress if the Minister spoke to the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 2 in page 1, line 7, leave out from 'authority' to 'a' in line 10 and insert 'shall fixe'.

No. 5, in page 1, line 13, at end insert:
'; and any such date may be either a calendar date or fixed by reference to the occurence of a particular annual event'.

No. 6, in page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
'(2) Subject to subsection (7) below, an education authority may, under subsection (1) above—
(a) fix different school commencement dated for different primary schools in their area;
(b) at any time fix a different school commencement date in substitution for any date previously fixed by them under the said subsection (1)'.

No. 9, in page 2, line 15, leave out from beginning to first 'date' in line 18 and insert:
'(4) Subject to subsection (7) below, an education authority shall, in respect of each school commencement date fixed by them under subsection (1) above and applicable to a public primary school, fix the latest following'.

No. 11, in page 2, line 22, leave out from 'whom' to end of line 31 and insert
'the authority consider of sufficient age to commence attendance at a public primary school at that school commencement date'.

No. 12, in page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) Subject to subsection (7) below, an education authority may, under subsection (4) above—
(a) where a school commencement date is applicable to more than one public primary school in their area, fix in respect of that school commencement date different appropriate latest dates for those different schools;
(b) at any time fix a different appropriate latest date in substitution for any date previously fixed by them under the said subsection (4)'.

No. 14, in page 3, line 7, leave out 'or (5)'.

No. 15, in page 3, line 11, at end insert—
'(7) The period between an appropriate latest date applicable to a school and the next following school commencement date applicable to that school (whether or not the school commencement date is that in respect of which the appropriate latest date is fixed) shall not, except with the approval of the Secretary of State on an application to him by the education authority, exceed six months by more than seven days:
Provided that no such application shall be made, nor approval given, in respect of any such period which commences after 31st December 1979'.

No. 16, in page 3, leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
'(8) In relation to any child, "school commencement date "—'.—[Mr. McElhone.]

Clause 2

SCHOOL LEAVING DATES

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 3, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 37 on page 4 and insert—
'33A. A person on attaining his sixteenth birthday shall be entitled to leave school at the end of the term in which his birthday occurs, except in the case of the autumn term when he may leave at mid-term provided his birthday falls in the first half of the term'.
We now turn to a major provision which gave rise to much discussion in the Committee and has been much discussed in Scotland. In Committee the Minister based his case on the support which the Bill had in education circles—as it did. He claimed that our arguments for a more flexible policy for leaving dates did not command support and that the Opposition were holding up the progress of the Bill. The Minister said that we were out of touch with opinion, but I must remind him of what was said in the Westminster Report of the Scottish Educational Journal of 7th May. It spoke of:
Mr. McElhone, who did not carry the day by the force of his argument but by the skill of the Labour Whip, Mr. James Hamilton,".
I have always admired the skill of the Labour Whips, not least the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton), but that demonstrates that for educational opinion what matters is not the skill or otherwise of Labour Whips but the arguments about better education in Scotland. It is clearly recognised by the journal of the largest teachers' union in Scotland that the arguments on this matter were not on the Government's side. It is generally recognised that what we need is a much more flexible system for school leaving dates than the Government proposed.
So that the Minister does not try to confuse the issue, as he did in Committee, I say straight away that I welcome the lengths to which the Government are going as an improvement on the present situation. But they should have gone further. In Committee we suggested that a person should be able to leave school at the end of the week in which he has his sixteenth birthday. Here we have tried to find a compromise between


that and the Government's proposal to have two school leaving dates. The Minister argued that our proposal would be disruptive. I questioned some of his arguments, because at least our proposal would be planned, and nothing could be more disruptive than to have the decision about leaving school put into the hands of the young person. That ends up in truancy and so on. But I have gone some way to try to meet the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Our amendment has certain advantages in two broad areas. First, it meets the major argument in favour of more flexibility advanced by the main teachers' organisations, the main local authority organisations, most of the local authorities—particularly before the reorganisation of local government—and the associations of social workers, which are important because they are concerned with young people when they leave school. Having four school leaving dates rather than two would introduce into the system a much more desirable degree of flexibility than the Government propose.
I do not think that it would be disruptive. Young people could leave at the end of the winter, summer or autumn terms in which they reached the age of 16, and would have the option of leaving at mid-term in the autumn. That is the longest term, and nowadays it is common to have a holiday then. Such a system would be welcomed not only by educational opinion generally but by parents and young people. It would be completely voluntary, with no compulsion.
Secondly, one of the worries expressed in Committee was that under the Government's proposals a young person could leave school at the age of 15 years and nine months. That would present certain problems connected with national insurance and entitlement to benefit until he reached 16. Under our proposals the school leaving age would be 16 and the national insurance problem would not arise. At an earlier stage of the Bill it was said that the Government would discuss the national insurance provision with the Department of Health and Social Security. I hope that the Minister will be able to say what discussions he has had with that Department on the

Bill, and whether he has been able to find some way of overcoming the difficulty of making provision for young people who leave school before their sixteenth birthday.
We believe that our amendment would overcome this problem. We seek to bring about greater flexibility in the system. Our proposal aims at striking a compromise between the two sides. I hope that in that same spirit of compromise the Government will accept our amendment.

Mr. Younger: I hope that the Minister will take seriously what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) —namely, that this amendment is being put forward in a spirit of compromise. We argued this point strongly in Committee, and we still feel strongly about it. The Government are missing a great opportunity to make these new arrangements more acceptable to pupils.
We were anxious that a child on reaching the age of 16 should be able to leave on the birth date. Against a great deal of evidence to the contrary, particularly from the teaching profession, the Government argued that it would be too disruptive for a boy or girl to be enabled to leave school on the day on which he or she reached the age of 16, because the rest of the class would see what was happening and discontent might result. In Committee we argued that this was contrary to the views of the main teaching organisations. We also argued that if there had been any difficulty, the teachers would have complained and made their views well known. The teaching organisations, particularly the EIS, have stuck to the view that they would prefer it if pupils were allowed to leave school on their sixteenth birthday.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that we have deliberately tried to strike a compromise in the amendment. Therefore, I hope that he will not reject our proposal. This is a compromise because, although it will not allow a person who reaches the age of 16 to leave on his birthday, it will, at least, allow him to leave on the first convenient date afterwards, either at the end of the term or, in the case of the autumn term, at the mid-term point.
1.30 a.m.
I do not believe that the argument about disruption of classes, which is already weak and not supported by teachers, applies to this amendment. Even if a large number of pupils left at the end of a particular term, I cannot see any validity in that argument. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to say that he accepts the amendment and the spirit of compromise in which it is moved.
The Minister wrote to me and to other of my hon. Friends after the proceedings in Committee. He took great trouble to deal with the points that he could not answer in Committee. In his comments he returned to the argument that employers' organisations were all of the opinion that it would be better for people to leave school at one time rather than sporadically throughout the term. The Minister must appreciate that in coming down on this side of the argument he has taken the advice of those in industry—those outside the schools, who receive school-leavers into employment—in preference to that of those most in touch with the schools—namely, the people concerned with education.
Neither the teaching organisations nor the local authority organisations take this view. I can see why those on the employment side take this view. From their point of view it is much more convenient to have a large batch of people coming into employment so that they have a wider choice. The Minister should give more weight to the views of teachers and those involved in the management of local authority schools. Although I would still like to insist on our original amendment concerning the date of the birthday, I support this compromise.
While I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying by letter the national insurance situation, I am unhappy about the result in that those who leave school before the age of 16—which will certainly be three months and possibly six months before they reach that age—will be covered only for injury and so on in their initial months of employment and will not be able to enter the National Insurance Scheme. The Minister has explained this and said that his discussions with the Department of Employment confirm this. When we have altered the leaving

dates we ought to make corresponding alterations to take account of the national insurance situation. I would have thought that it was easy enough to arrange. We ought to change the rules and regulations to ensure that those leaving school in such circumstances receive the same treatment, irrespective of the time that they leave.
I hope that the Minister will consult his colleagues and try to make arrangements so that when people leave school, at whatever age, they can go into employment and into the national insurance system straight away. That way it would be much easier for people to understand. I see no reason why it should not be done. The only reason it has not been done up to now is apparently that the regulations do not permit it. I hope that the Minister will take this seriously, and that if he cannot answer tonight because he is required to consult colleagues in other Departments he will at least assure us that he will do so. This amendment is something with which the Minister could agree, and if he does he will give some reward for the long work we put in during the Committee stage, with very little result. Our arguments are extremely well supported by a lot of opinion outside this House, and not a single person has written to me to disagree with the points we put forward in Committee. This amendment is a compromise which, if accepted, will make all those long hours of work worth while.

Mrs. Bain: Very briefly, I shall ask the Minister to accept the amendment in the spirit in which it has been moved. This is a compromise between the official line which the Government adopted in Committee and the amendments moved by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and myself, which were rejected by the Committee. Even though one or two hon. Members opposite—the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) was one—supported us in debate, they did not do so on the vote. Since we had that debate in Committee, in all the correspondence I have received, both as a constituency Member and as official spokesman for my party on education, only one letter supported the official line of the Government. All the other letters—and they ran into three figures—


supported the line taken by myself and the official Opposition.
This is very much a compromise amendment on the basis that it allow people in education circles who are concerned that there would be difficulty in arranging courses in schools to allow for several school leaving dates for the children involved, and it would allow training colleges the right to gear their courses to those leaving dates. This is a very important aspect. I urge the Minister to accept that. If he will not, I urge the Opposition to press this matter to a vote for a change.

Mr. McElhone: I will respond as briefly as possible, while giving a full explanation. This issue was raised by many hon. Members in Committee, and there has been great depth of feeling about it.
This amendment would effectively result in there being four school leaving dates—in October, November, April and June. Pupils would be able to leave school at the end of the term in which their sixteenth birthday fell at ages ranging from 16 to perhaps 16 years four months. This is another permutation of getting youngsters to leave on their sixteenth birthday, which hon. Members opposite readily accepted was the aim they were pushing very hard in Committee. We had many contributions to the debate in which hon. Members said that young people should be able to leave on their sixteenth birthday. I provided information from the STUC, the Glasgow Trades Council and the Employment Executive saying that they did not wish young people to leave on their sixteenth birthday.
The Bill's proposals as they stand provide for two leaving dates, 31st May and the first day of the Christmas holidays. Children attaining 16 before 1st October will cease to be of school age on 31st May, and those who are 16 before 1st March at Christmas but because of the time factor we cannot operate these provisions this year. No child will remain of school age beyond the age of 16 years three months, and some will be eligible to leave as young as 15 years eight months. It is difficult to see what help the amendments could be to the young people concerned. I made the point several times in Committee that the

Government were opposed to pupils leaving on the 16th birthday. We heard the views of the teachers, the unions and industry, but those bodies put forward their views on the basis of the present system rather than that contained in the Bill.
Hon. Members have referred to the numbers of letters they have received. I could make a similar point. Since we announced leaving dates which provide that a pupil can leave on 31st May if he is 16 between 1st March and 30th September, and on the first day of the Christmas holidays if his birthday is between 1st October and the end of February, we too have received representations.
The CBI put forward in its submission that it has two intakes for craft apprentices, one in August and one at Christmas, and it felt that this was the best arrangement for it. I accept that it is concerned only with industry, but the careers officers and the Employment Executive, as well as other bodies like the STUC and the Glasgow district trades council, supported our view.

Mr. Younger: Surely the Minister is making too much of this. The CBI said quite properly that it has two entry dates. There is nothing to prevent that continuing. Boys who are going in for such apprenticeships can wait on at school and leave at the appropriate time. The CBI has expressed an opinion. I am delighted that the Government seem to be taking notice of it. It must be the first time in two years that they have done so. How can the Minister weigh that opinion against the opinion of the teachers who are more likely to know what is best for their pupils?

Mr. McElhone: The EIS, which is the largest teaching union in Scotland, said that the Government's proposals were a positive step forward and that they had educational advantage. That point was lost in Committee. Many hon. Members argued their case on the ground of the consultative document and against the background of the existing teaching system. The representations did not take account of the new proposals because those proposals were not known at that time. Those proposals were not put forward until after the consultations were held.
The amendment would deny pupils who attained the age of 16 in late August and September the opportunity to compete for autumn employment.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) raised the point about social security. That is a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Services. I gave no undertaking in Committee that I would consider the provision of social security. I said, and I repeat it tonight, that I would put forward the views expressed by hon. Members and would indicate the depth of feeling about the topic.

Mr. Canavan: It would appear strange and unjust if a pupil could leave at the age of 15 years and eight months, take employment but not be entitled to national insurance cover until he had reached the age of 16. Are consultations taking place between the Scottish Office, the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Social Security on this point? This should be dealt with urgently. The DHSS should introduce amending legislation to make the qualifying date for full national insurance cover the same as the school leaving date.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend took a close and helpful interest in the Bill in Committee. I must point out to him that this point was raised on the English Bill and was resisted.
If we are to amend social security legislation, it must apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the only way to tackle it.
I accept that it seems anomalous that there is cover for injury benefit, but perhaps not for sickness benefit. I shall draw the attention of the appropriate Minister in the DHSS to the points raised in this debate and indicate the depth of feeling on this matter.
There have been a number of comments about COSLA—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It has a committee of education authorities, and we have received a letter from the convenor, Mr. George Foulkes, welcoming the co-operation which existed between the Scottish Office and COSLA and expressing thanks for the way we con-

suited the Convention during the passage of the Bill.
The proposals in the Bill are the best for the pupils, the teaching profession, industry, commerce and any professions that these young people may wish to pursue. I urge the House to resist the amendment.

Mr. Monro: That was an astonishing reply from the Minister. The Bill has been in the Scottish Office for perhaps 12 months and has been going through the House since Christmas, yet the Minister has not got the simple answer about children who leave school at the age of 15 years and eight months.
It is not good enough to say that the Scottish Office is having consultations with the DHSS. We may be giving the Bill a Third Reading later this morning and we should have the information before then. Why cannot the Minister contact the DHSS now? Surely there is a Minister in the House who knows something about this matter.
We should have a reply about the position of a pupil who leaves school at the age of 15 years and eight months, legitimately takes up employment and is injured at work or requires social security help. The Minister does not know what the position will be. No Government should try to force through a Bill concerned with such a crucial issue as the employment of young people. This is something about which the House has been very careful in the past.
The Minister has been slipshod and has not found out the answers. Why does he not go away now and find them out?

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We must protest bitterly at the inadequacy of the Minister's reply.
One simple point was raised in Committee time and again—the position of pupils who left school at the age of 15 years and eight or nine months and whether they could claim sickness benefits. Surely it is the sort of question to which there should be a straight and simple answer. The Minister said "I shall try to find out". Does he treat the questions that are raised in Committee as so insignificant that he thinks he can say on Report that he will try to find out? As my hon. Friend the Member


for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) rightly said, this is not good enough.
Further, it is only fair to tell hon. Members representing English constituencies that they have not been told the true facts about representations on the choice of leaving dates. The Minister gave the impression that everyone supported what the Government have been saying, but that is not the case. One of the bodies that he has quoted is the Institute of Careers Officers in Scotland. He said on 29th April that officers in industrial conurbations thought one or two fixed dates most suitable, but that those in the rural areas favoured three or four. In other words, they were about equally divided. Certainly they were not all of the Government's view.
The Association of County Councils in Scotland, a rather important body, was in favour of four fixed dates, as we suggest. The Edinburgh Federation of Parent and Parent Teacher Associations is in favour of four fixed leaving dates. The Leith Chamber of Commerce favours three fixed leaving dates, while the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce favour four fixed leaving dates. The Scottish Association of Voluntary Child Care Organisations is in favour of something almost identical.
There is a large number of organisations which support what my hon. Friends and I have been putting forward. It is wrong for the Minister to quote those organisations which are against a leaving age of 16 as being against the amendment, an amendment which was put forward as a compromise.
The Minister will not help himself in getting Bills through the House at a reasonable hour, or in getting co-operation from the Opposition, when he chooses not to answer the points that we make on the Floor of the House, and not even to answer the simple questions that we raised in Committee.
Why should the House support the clause? I am glad to welcome the support of the SNP for our amendment. We were grateful for its support previously and we are grateful now. It is not surprising that it wishes to support one of our many amendments. Unfortunately—no doubt through pressure of work—it has not managed to table any amendments itself.
I suggest that there are four basic reasons for supporting the amendment. First, it offers a little more flexibility. Instead of having two leaving dates we would have four. There is no question of disruption. As Labour Members who are ex-teachers will know, the school session is broken up into four terms, each separated by a holiday. That makes our proposal quite logical, notwithstanding the metric system which the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends want to force down the throats of the British people.
Secondly, under our proposal no child would leave school before 16. That is a matter of considerable importance that has not been given sufficient attention. Many of us remember the great battle that was fought to get the school leaving age of 16 accepted. It was not a popular thing to do. It is not generally appreciated that under the Government's proposals pupils in Scotland will be able to leave school at 15 years and eight months instead of the present 16 and a bit. The present system operates so that the leaving age is sometimes 16½ and sometimes 16¼, but the amendment retains the essential element that no pupil leaves school before the age of 16. Under the Government's scheme they will be leaving at 15 years and eight months.
I turn to the third advantage of our proposals. The Government have suggested that one of the fixed leaving dates should be 31st May. I cannot think of any good reason for that date, unless it is argued that it falls after the exams and before the summer break, when not a great deal happens in the schools. However, it is worth while for the pupils who are thinking of leaving school at that stage to consider staying on. They might be tempted to stay on. That period between May and the end of June can be valuable in trying to encourage them to stay on a little later. The House would be wrong to vote against our amendment until the Minister gives us a simple answer to the simple question about national insurance.
I am grateful to the English Members who have waited up and have shown their interest in Scottish education. Their interest is greatly appreciated because they are now aware of some of the serious problems in Scotland, and they will be aware that one of the main reasons why


we are keeping them up is that we now have a Scottish education Minister who not only is not prepared to answer questions but is not prepared to take the trouble to find out the facts or even to appreciate that when a case is put forward it should be answered clearly and with facts.
It is for that reason that, despite the lateness of the hour, I strongly recommend my hon. Friends and any fair-minded hon. Members on the Government Benches to vote for the amendment, in the interests of Scottish education.

Mr. Adam Hunter: I appeal to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to deal with one point. I had always understood that the Bill would become an Act in time to allow children to benefit from its provisions this year. Unfortunately, from the statement made by my hon. Friend it is clear that this will not be so. I find that very disappointing, because already I have sent him a letter from a parent who saw me about her boy, who was 16 on 10th May and who has been offered a job as a gardener's apprentice. He hoped that he would be able to take this job on 31st May—the new school leaving date under the Bill. Unfortunately, if the Bill is not implemented he will have to go on his summer holidays on 2nd July.
Another young lady telephoned me from a village in my constituency. She will be 16 on 22nd August. Under the Bill she would have left school on 31st May, but if the Bill is not implemented, as I would like, she will have to stay at school until February next year.
I think that that is utterly disgraceful, and I sincerely hope that if my hon. Friend can make this measure retrospective in any way he will do so.

Mr. Fairgrieve: Before we vote on the amendment, will the Minister tell us what will be done about people who leave school and are working before their sixteenth birthday in terms of their national insurance cards? May we have an answer?

Mr. McElhone: I have said that the decision on social security benefits is not a question for me; it is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I undertook to make the point to him. I also pointed out

that there is some difficulty in this case, in that the point was resisted in the English Bill.
As for the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Hunter), if progress had been made in Committee we would have had a situation in which a young person who reached the age of 16 between 1st March and the end of September would have been able to leave school on 31st May this year. That is the situation that will exist after this year, but because of what happened in Committee and the fact that we did not get the Bill through Committee—[Interruption.] I am not going to go into the question of blame now. I am saying that the Bill did not come out of Committee in time to allow my hon. Friend's constituents to leave at the time they hoped.
As for the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), I have long since learned to disregard his type of argument, because it is always the same one for every Bill, and it does not merit an answer.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Minister has been less than fair to the House about the matter of national insurance. In bringing forward proposals for legislation, as they have done with this Bill, the Government must surely take some account of the consequences of their actions. One of the consequences of the Bill will be that young people will be leaving school and entering employment at the age of 15 years and eight months, and that raises problems. Why is the Minister not prepared to tell the House how the Government intend to meet those problems? I see that one of the Ministers of the Department of Health and Social Security is present. I am sure that he could give the answer. The Minister has not thought to give the answer, but perhaps if we wait for a few minutes his colleague will be able to provide it.
The Minister cannot continue in this fashion. There must have been consultations. I hope that there have been consultations with the STUC. Has the Minister talked to the STUC about this matter? Has he talked to the CBI and the education authorities? He must tell the House before we finish with this debate, otherwise further progress on the Bill will be


very difficult. I hope that he will answer the point.

Hon. Members: Answer.

Division No, 164
AYES
2.03 a.m.


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gray, Hamish
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Benyon, W.
Hampson, Dr Keith
Stradling, Thomas J.


Biggs-Davison, John
Henderson, Douglas
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Body, Richard
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Thompson, George


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Le Marchant, Spencer
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Corrie, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Weatherill, Bernard


Crawford, Douglas
MacCormick, Iain
Welsh, Andrew


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mather, Carol
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hon George


Fairgrieve, Russell
Penhaligon, David
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Reid, George
Mr. Fred Silvester and Mr. Michael Roberts


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Rifkind, Malcolm



Goodhart, Philip
Sproat, Iain





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Kerr, Russell


Anderson, Donald
Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Archer, Peter
Dunn, James A.
Kinnock, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Dunnett, Jack
Lambie, David


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex
Lamborn, Harry


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Edge, Geoff
Lamond, James


Atkinson, Norman
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ennals, David
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bates, Alf
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Litterick, Tom


Bean, R. E.
Evans John (Newton)
Lomas, Kenneth


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Loyden, Eddie


Bidwell, Sydney
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Luard, Evan


Bishop, E. S.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Flannery, Martin
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McCartney, Hugh


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ford, Ben
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Forrester, John
Mackenzie, Gregor


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Maclennan, Robert


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Buchanan, Richard
Freeson, Reginald
McNamara, Kevin


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
George, Bruce
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gilbert, Dr John
Magee, Bryan


Campbell, Ian
Golding, John
Mahon, Simon


Cant, R. B.
Gould, Bryan
Mal1alieu, J. P. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Gourlay, Harry
Marks, Kenneth


Cartwright, John
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Clemitson, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cohen, Stanley
Hardy, Peter
Meacher, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, John


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Concannon, J. D.
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Millan, Bruce


Conlan, Bernard
Keller, Eric S.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Corbett, Robin
Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Molloy, William


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Huckfield, Les
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland


Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Davidson, Arthur
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Newens, Stanley


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)
Noble, Mike


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
John, Brynmor
Ogden, Eric


Deakins, Eric
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ovenden, John


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Palmer, Arthur


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, George


Dempsey, James
Judd, Frank
Parry, Robert


Doig, Peter
Kaufman, Gerald
Pavitt, Laurie


Dormand, J. D.
Kelley, Richard
Peart, Rt Hon Fred

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 233.

Perry, Ernest
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Ward, Michael


Prescott, John
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Watkins, David


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Skinner, Dennis
Watkinson, John


Price, William (Rugby)
Small, William
Weetch, Ken


Radice, Giles
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Snape, Peter
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Richardson, Miss Jo
Spearing, Nigel
White, James (Pollok)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stallard, A. W.
Whitehead, Phillip


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Whitlock, William


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stoddart, David
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Roderick, Caerwyn
Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Strang, Gavin
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Rooker, J. W.
Swain, Thomas
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Roper, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Woodall, Alec


Rowlands, Ted
Tinn, James
Woof, Robert


Sedgemore, Brian
Tomlinson, John
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Selby, Harry
Urwin, T. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.



Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. Tom Pendrey and Mr. Ted Graham.


Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 4, line 37, at end add—
'(5) Notwithstanding the above, the education authority may allow a person to leave school on his sixteenth birthday with the agreement of his head teacher and his parents, where it is shown that he has opportunity immediately to undertake further education, or to enter an approved trade apprenticeship and in any exceptional circumstances.'
I only wish that the Minister could show as much seriousness in his reply as his hon. Friends did in trying to support him. During the Committee stage we debated a similar amendment and, after a long debate, the Minister showed the same stubbornness he has shown tonight, in dealing with the amendment which was put forward constructively. It was more because of a threatened revolt by certain hon. Members on his own side of the Committee that the Minister said at the last minute:
I am prepared to look at this. I cannot give a categorical commitment, but I am prepared to look at it and discuss it with bodies, and my advisers, and come hack on Report, in the interests of the arguments of my hon. Friends."— [Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 4th May, 1976, c. 197].
The hon. Gentleman said he was prepared to come back to this matter at Report. I am sorry he has not been prepared to do so and that it has been left to the Conservative Opposition again, in the interests of education in Scotland, to come back to this matter. I really thought that this was one matter on which the Minister himself would have taken some initiative and dealt with it.
I shall not deploy all the arguments we had in Committee at this late hour although obviously, with so much interest and attendance from English constituencies, it would be good if we could perhaps deploy the arguments which took up something like 30 columns on 4th May.
This amendment, and the amendment we proposed in Committee, would not have been so necessary if we did not believe in getting a more flexible attitude from the Government over the actual leaving dates themselves. The Government have shown themselves stubborn again tonight.
2.15 a.m.
There is little discretion under the Education Act to permit a young person to leave school before his sixteenth birthday. The only exceptions are difficulties in the home. The first safeguard in the amendment is the restriction to the sixteenth birthday; the second is the obtaining of the agreement of the head teacher and parents. These safeguards will ensure that the provision is not misused.
There are then three grounds on which a pupil will be allowed to leave on his sixteenth birthday: first, to undertake further education; second—I wish that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Spring-burn (Mr. Buchanan) were here, because he was strong on this point in Committee —to enter an approved trade or apprenticeship; third, any exceptional circumstances, which would cover the home circumstances where discretion is already allowed.
The amendment introduces, with suitable safeguards, the flexibility which is lacking in the Government's attitude. If


the Minister would accept it immediately, that would expedite our proceedings.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I support the amendment. An officer who is a member of a training organisation told me at my surgery on Saturday that because of the present inflexibility in the Act pupils had been held back for six months or so and had consequently lost apprenticeships. The amendment would give flexibility; local education authorities should have this discretion where it is to the pupil's advantage. No one will believe that it will be abused or ill-used. The amendment would deal with the many difficult cases which have arisen in the past. In these days, when boys and girls are leaving school their lives can be made or broken on whether they can accept the chance of an apprenticeship. I hope that the Government will acept the amendment.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) says that the Government have not been willing to move on the Bill, but it is certainly true that the Opposition are willing to move. Most of them seem to have moved home in the last half-hour. This matter was discussed at considerable length in Committee and it is perhaps unnecessary for me to go over the whole argument again at this late hour.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee that he would have further consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The reason why we have not put down an amendment similar in terms to this one is quite simply that it is the strong view of COSLA that it would be undesirable for such a provision to be written into the Bill because there would be insuperable operational difficulties in it.
The amendment deals with three sets of circumstances but with only one genuinely new circumstance. There is already provision in existing legislation to allow early leaving even before the sixteenth birthday to enter a full-time course of further education. Again, if there are exceptional home circumstances, there is provision for leaving from the age of 14 onwards. But we are dealing here with the question of entering approved trade apprenticeships.
It could be argued that under existing legislation an element of flexibility was missing, but the new leaving dates in the Bill provide that in certain circumstances children will be able to leave school before their sixteenth birthday. It will depend on when the birthday falls. The 31st May leaving date will take care of children whose sixteenth birthday falls between 1st March and 30th September, and the Christmas leaving date will take care of those whose sixteenth birthday falls between 1st October and 28th February.
In each case, children will be leaving before the sixteenth birthday, and therefore the provisions of the Bill introduce a loosening of the present situation. This was generally welcomed in Committee, although there were arguments as to other arrangements which might have been introduced.
It seems to me, therefore, that there is no case for writing further qualifications into the Bill which could only apply even theoretically to certain pupils—not all, because some children will be able to leave before the sixteenth birthday in any case—and to particular times of the year. It seems rather unlikely that in practice under the amendment full-time apprenticeship would be available to be taken up because, as the leaving dates will operate, the amendment would only operate at particular periods of the year which are not normally the start of full-time apprenticeships.
To place such an obligation on local authorities would mean that they would have to make invidious choices between one pupil and another. They would have to decide whether one type of employment was desirable. The authorities do not want to do that. They would have to make invidious choices between pupils. The more able pupils would be most likely to obtain advantage. They would be more likely to take up full-time apprenticeships. But the pupils who cause most anxiety in schools are those who are over 16 who resent being kept on at school. Because on average they are less able, they find it more difficult to obtain apprenticeships. Therefore, there would be discrimination between pupils who are less resentful at remaining at school and those who are resentful. For those good reasons, the clause is better left as it is. To introduce a further


complication would be a mistake. I hope that after that explanation the amendment, however well-intentioned, will be withdrawn.

Mr. Monro: The amendment should not be withdrawn. The Secretary of State has said that the education authorities are not prepared to accept responsibility for deciding. He said that it might be invidious to do that, but any head teacher, in conjunction with a director of education and other advisers, should be able to decide which cases are special. That is the main issue.
The provision particularly affects the situation where a father or mother running a small business falls ill and their 16-year-old child is unable to leave school to help with the business or farm. Section 34 of the 1962 Act allows authorities to grant an exemption from the obligation to attend school for a child who needs to assist at home. But home has always been narrowly interpreted to mean a domestic situation. The exemption cannot apply to a small business situation even if the family lives over the shop, for instance.
Flexibility is important. Absolute rigidity causes hardship. I would be surprised if every hon. Member had not experienced a case of genuine hardship because a pupil is not able to leave school to help in a family crisis. To introduce flexibility will not put an enormous or onerous burden upon education authorities. It is not something that they will have to implement weekly or even monthly. It may come up just a few times in the year, and then it could be used to alleviate immense hardship for a particular family. Education authorities need not be afraid of having the power to give this exemption or to take the responsibility of creating precedents. Now that we have set up the regional education authority system, in which we hope there will be a degree of uniformity —there are so few directors of education that they must be able to have a high degree of uniformity—there should be no great difficulty in implementing the special case satisfactorily for all concerned.
2.30 a.m.
That is why I support my hon. Friend most strongly and hope that the amendment is taken to a Division. [Interrup-

tion.] There is a long time to go, unless the Leader of the House returns and moves to adjourn. It is no use Labour Members getting excited about wanting to go home. If the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) has not had an example of hardship involving a pupil who requires to leave school, his constituency must be unique.
I hope that the Secretary of State will take the matter seriously and think again before the end of the debate.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I oppose the amendment for a number of reasons. First, I believe that the proposals to change the leaving date represent a weakening of our commitment to raise the school leaving age. I know that that view is not shared by the majority of hon. Members, because they believe that the pressure from outside to allow children to leave school earlier has been impossible to resist, and, therefore, we have the Bill.
But then we come to the amendment. As my right hon. Friend has explained, leaving the normal school to go on to further education is taken care of under present legislation. The question of exceptional home circumstances is also already covered.
There are two points about the amendment. One is the question of apprenticeships. We have all had problems raised by parents who have said "if only my boy could leave school next week he would get an apprenticeship. If he has to wait until the normal leaving date he will not." The possibility of that happening is much reduced by the Bill. The difficulty is that there will always be some children on the wrong side of the line for an apprenticeship. People will say "if only he were 16 now instead of in five months' time." Therefore, the pressure is to allow them to leave between 15 and 16 to obtain an apprenticeship. But to some extent that argument is not reasonable. Often an employer says "I need an apprentice to begin now". But an apprenticeship should be a training. Therefore, for the first two or three years there should not be any economic advantage to a firm in taking on an apprentice. Employers should think of taking on apprentices not as extra pairs of hands to undertake extra work, but as people to be trained. Reasonable employers


should gear their apprenticeship schemes to fit in with the school leaving dates and with the various schemes in their areas.
The amendment uses the phrase "in any exceptional circumstances". It does not define whether they are circumstances relating to the home, small businesses, farming or whatever it may be. The phrase could embrace the situation of a youngster who is unhappy at school—a youngster with no prospects of a job, but somebody who does not like being at school. Such a pupil has already been described as a resentful pupil.
Almost any exceptional circumstance can be argued by parents if they wish a child to leave school. I believe that the phrase in the amendment is far too open. It is unnecessary to widen the provision further. Every hon. Member knows the ingenuity of certain parents when they want a particular set of circumstances to apply to their child. I believe that as soon as one child is able to leave school ahead of time, there will be pressure for other children also to leave school early. This could bring to education authorities and schools more difficulties than at first sight one might imagine. I am opposed to any further weakening of the situation in regard to the school leaving age.
Having decided to raise the school leaving age, I believe that we should be prepared to stick by it. There are considerable educational advantages in children remaining in school for a consistent period that can be measured. Therefore, the education system should be geared towards some consistent system rather than that there should be a system under which children drop out throughout the year. I believe that the proposals in the amendment will have the opposite effect—namely, that they will bring pressure for children to leave school as quickly as possible. That is a bad effect, and I hope that the House will oppose this amendment.

Mr. Younger: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for Scotland for having explained the situation and certainly for the trouble he has taken since the Committee stage to hold consultations. However, does he not think that he has got the matter a little out of proportion?

Does he not think that the argument is rather bureaucratic?
The amendment seeks to deal with a tiny number of hard cases. It gives discretion to headmasters, head teachers and education authorities to enable a small proportion of hard cases that come on the wrong side of the line to be dealt with. The Secretary of State is right to say that people with difficult home circumstances are covered. But the point of the amendment is that there are a small number of cases which are not covered and, indeed, cannot be covered because they are statute-barred. That is the whole object of the amendment. I hope that the Secretary of State will think again about it because of that. It is no use saying, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said, that this is a negligible matter because so few people are involved. That is the whole point of the amendment.
I had a case a year or two ago which has a direct bearing on this. The circumstances in which my constituent was wanting to leave school were not the same. Nevertheless the same situation can still be found. This was a pupil just under the appropriate leaving date age who wished to undertake a specialised course of instruction to fit her for her future career. The course did not come within the definition of further education. Everyone—parents, teachers, local authority—agreed that it was desirable that the girl should leave school and attend this course which began in the October. If she did not begin it then she would have to wait another year. The girl could not be released because she was statute-barred. She had not completed four years of secondary education. Every other condition was met but because she was three weeks on the wrong side of the date barrier she could not leave.
I hope that the Secretary of State will accept this as a genuine point. The amendment may not be word perfect. It is difficult to produce amendments which are word perfect. All that we are trying to do is to give some discretion to the parents, the teachers and local authorities to allow this to happen in these cases. That is not much to ask. If the parents, the teachers or the local officials do not agree—any one of these groups—our


amendment would not apply. I would consider that to be fair. There would be a difference of opinion which would make it a marginal case and the child probably should remain at school.
We ought not to adopt the argument that because so few people will be involved, and because we have the thing so nearly right, we should not write in a provision of this sort. That is too bureaucratic for words. Can we not stretch a point to allow discretion to responsible professional people who know the case and the person?
The other argument, to which we should not stick, is that it will be too difficult to make the choice. I appreciate the efforts of the Secretary of State in producing his arguments. But does he think that they are good arguments? Are we really to say that headmasters who know their pupils will say. "I would like to make a choice with regard to a pupil but it is too difficult, too embarrassing. I cannot do it in case others object." We are not in the business of being such jellies. I do not think that our head teachers are either.
In the sort of case I am thinking of these people would know perfectly well what ought to be done without this amendment. I know that a number of hon. Members will, within the next five years, have painful cases brought to them. Parents will come to them and say "If only there was this discretion. Why will the Government not give the discretion?" Nothing will be lost if the Secretary of State would stretch a point to allow this discretionary power. It will not put anyone in the wrong. It will not force anyone to leave school a day earlier than his teachers, parents and education officials want. Can we please have a little more flexibility from the Secretary of State? This amendment has support from more than one side of the House.

2.45 a.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I am somewhat attracted to the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). Earlier in the debate great stress was laid on the word "flexibility". This Bill increases flexibility. All we are asking about now is a small period of three months. That is all that is involved here—16 years three months

is the latest age that one can be kept at school under the terms of the Bill. There must be a very small number of pupils involved in any given school in any part of Scotland at any given time. I cannot accept that it is an invidious choice the headmaster has to make.
Perhaps we should have agreed at the start to make the age of 16 the date when a person was entitled to leave school. Literally, as this Bill is going to work in the long term, and if we accepted the amendment, that is what it would mean. There will be a large number of pupils who can leave school four months before their sixteenth birthday anyway, and when they come to 16, if this amendment were put into effect, they could leave school provided they had an approved trade apprenticeship to go to.
This problem occurred in my constituency with a lad who wanted to become a jockey, and was offered an apprenticeship on 1st June this year. Because of the delay in passing the legislation, he has lost the opportunity until the autumn. That lad may well become a Lester Piggott, but I cannot accept that because he has to stay in school from 31st May until the end of June he will be a better or worse jockey. If this amendment were accepted it would have been the case that this boy would have been able to leave school had he been caught in the three-month period. Had it been law, he would have been caught as he was actually 16 in February.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and I now understand why it took so long to get this Bill before the House of Commons. When he was a Minister we asked him to review the legislation and come up with a better system of school leaving dates. But, having heard him tonight, I understand why we had to wait for a new Minister. I appeal to the Minister to give credibility to the arguments adduced by the Opposition and myself. It would not help if I went into the Division Lobby with the Opposition tonight because there are so many of them missing that my vote would not make any difference whatever.

Mr. Fairgrieve: I have had the same experience as the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay), my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and my


hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) of constituents writing to me with these problems—of young people wanting to go into a small business or an apprenticeship being delayed and not allowed to do so for purely bureaucratic reasons.
There is a small family painting business in my constituency in which a father wanted his son to start an apprenticeship but found he could not do so. I wrote to the education authorities, the school and other authorities, but all to no avail. I want to explain the importance of painting in my constituency. It is a very large one—2,000 square miles—and there are many houses which require painting, and in some cases there are lamp posts which need painting. There are the same problems of painting no doubt in North Aberdeen, South Aberdeen and East Aberdeenshire—we all have such problems. Because of these bureaucratic decisions a young lad cannot leave school to join a painting business, and we in our Scottish constituencies suffer from a shortage of painters.
Since the Government Benches are quieter and are behaving themselves, I will not develop my arguments to the fullest extent, but I warn hon. Members that if they misbehave I shall be only too happy to elaborate on the problems and importance of painters or some other trade.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Gourlay) said that this was a flexible Bill. He is wrong. It is a rigid Bill because it provides for only two leaving dates in the year. We are trying to make it flexible so that anyone who is just caught by the Bill but is in a special situation—the highest priority is someone with a trade apprenticeship to go to—may leave. The Secretary of State said that not many would be affected by the amendment. That is the whole point. That small number will be aged between 16 years and 16 years and three months. Further education is already covered by the 1962 Act, but in a different way. Exceptional circumstances are covered by that Act as well, again in a different way.
Only two points of real substance were put forward by the Secretary of State. He said, first, that if we allowed this group

to leave it would cause resentment among those left at school. Surely he accepts that the employment situation now is very different from what it was when his Government came to power. It is a nightmare for the average family.

Mr. Buchan: If boy A is allowed to leave to take a job, that job is not available to boy B. That makes no difference in employment terms. It affects only the individual who gets the job, not the numbers involved.

Mr. Taylor: I never thought that I would hear the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) take that sort of attitude. He seems to forget that unemployment is a serious problem. His attitude to unemployment today is different from his attitude to unemployment in the days of the Conservative Government when the figures were much better.
Surely there is a considerable difference between the youngster who has a trade apprenticeship to go to tomorrow and the lad who has only the possibility of a job when he leaves school. The Secretary of State referred to resentment. There would be very great resentment by a youngster who had a trade apprenticeship and a career to go to but was unable to take it up because of this rigid rule.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Surely this argument applies to a youngster at the age of 15 or 14. Does the hon. Member not agree that there must be an arbitrary limit on the age at which pupils should be allowed to leave?

Mr. Taylor: If the school leaving age is to be 16 a pupil should be allowed to leave at that age if he has an apprenticeship to go to. Another factor is that 16 is the normal age for starting an apprenticeship in the main trades—welders, shipwrights and the rest.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) suggested that the amendment weakened the principle of a school leaving age of 16. On the contrary, the Bill undermines that principle by allowing youngsters aged 15 years and eight months to leave school. If anything, the amendment strengthens the principle. If there was a reason for this amendment at any time, there is surely an even stronger reason now—the serious worsening of the unemployment situation.
Hon. Members who have visited schools will know that some youngsters are getting desperate about employment prospects. If we say that pupils who have reached the magical age of 16—which most people identify as the school leaving age—have to stay on for another two or three months when there is a trade apprenticeship available for them, we shall create great resentment and unnecessary distress and hardship.
Only a small number will be affected. They will all be kept back for a maximum of three months. If the amendment is rejected, a small number of pupils will be kept back for up to three months and prevented from taking a trade apprenticeship.
If the Government have any flexibility and reasonableness, they will accept the amendment and there will be no need for a vote. Otherwise, we shall divide and I hope all reasonable hon. Members opposite will support us.

Mr. Harry Selby: An hon. Member from the SNP has referred to my contribution in Committee when I said I supported the Opposition. I explained at that time that the reason I gave that support was the apparent

Bain, Mrs Margaret
Gray, Hamish
Stradling, Thomas J.


Benyon, W.
Henderson, Douglas
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Body, Richard
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Thompson, George


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
MacCormick, Iain
Weatherill, Bernard


Corrie, John
Monro, Hector
Welsh, Andrew


Crawford, Douglas
Penhaligon, David
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Rifkind, Malcolm
Younger, Hon George


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)



Fairgrieve, Russell
Silvester, Fred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Sproat, Iain
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Carol Mather.


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)





NOES


Allaun, Frank
Campbell, Ian
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Anderson, Donald
Cant, R. B.
Dempsey, James


Archer, Peter
Carmichael, Neil
Doig, Peter


Armstrong, Ernest
Cartwright, John
Dormand, J. D.


Ashton, Joe
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Clemitson, Ivor
Duffy, A. E. P.


Atkinson, Norman
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Dunn, James A.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cohen, Stanley
Dunnett, Jack


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Coleman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Edge, Geoff


Bean, R. E.
Concannon, J. D.
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)


Bidwell, Sydney
Corbett, Robin
Ennals, David


Bishop, E. S
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhlll)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cryer, Bob
Evans John (Newton)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Dalyell, Tam
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Davidson, Arthur
Flannery, Martin


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Buchanan, Richard
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Deakins, Eric
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ford, Ben

rigidity of the Bill. I also said that I regretted that the Bill contained no extension of the school leaving age so that every working-class child could take GCE A-levels and not be forced to leave before then.

I find now that a certain amount of that rigidity has been relaxed. I urge hon. Members to treat this amendment with the same overwhelming contempt as they treated the last and to give it an even bigger whacking. The niggling Opposition are searching for brickbats to throw at the Government. We need further education, not less. I do not see why the children of Conservative Members, for example, should be able to get their A-levels and a place at university without question while working-class children have to go cap in hand and beg.

We have a crisis—this is by way of an aside—in the teaching profession. If we included in the Bill an extension up to the age of 17, I believe that we should overcome the present crisis.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 216.

Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Sedgemore, Brian


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
McNamara, Kevin
Selby, Harry


Freeson, Reginald
Madden, Max
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


George, Bruce
Magee, Bryan
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Gilbert, Dr John
Mahon, Simon
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Golding, John
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Gould, Bryan
Marks, Kenneth
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Graham, Ted
Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Grocott, Bruce
Maynard, Miss Joan
Small, William


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Meacher, Michael
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Hardy, Peter
Mendelson, John
Snape, Peter


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian
Spearing, Nigel


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Millan, Bruce
Stallard, A. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Hooley, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Stoddart, David


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Molloy, William
Stott, Roger


Huckfield, Les
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hunter, Adam
Moyle, Roland
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tinn, James


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Tomlinson, John


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Newens, Stanley
Urwin, T. W.


John, Brynmor
Noble, Mike
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Ovenden, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Judd, Frank
Palmer, Arthur
Ward, Michael


Kaufman, Gerald
Park, George
Walkins, David


Kelley, Richard
Parry, Robert
Watkinson, John


Kerr, Russell
Pavitt, Laurie
Weetch, Ken


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Wellbeloved, James


Kinnock, Neil
Pendry, Tom
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lambie, David
Perry, Ernest
White, James (Pollok)


Lamborn, Harry
Prescott, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Lamond, James
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Whitlock, William


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Radice, Giles
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lomas, Kenneth
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Loyden, Eddie
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Luard, Evan
Robinson, Geoffrey
Woodall, Alec


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Roderick, Caerwyn
Woof, Robert


McCartney, Hugh
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


McElhone, Frank
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Young, David (Bolton E)


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roper, John
Mr. Alf Bates and Mr. Joseph Harper.


Mackenzie, Gregor
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

3.12 a.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On Third Reading of this important Bill we are disappointed that the Minister should simply rise to move the Third Reading formally. Many of us want to know exactly how the Bill will be applied. One of the great points that the Minister made at earlier stages concerned the necessity for the Bill to receive Royal Assent and pass into law by 31st May. He made some passing references tonight to the alleged difficulties of the Government in getting the Bill into effect. Therefore, the House is entitled to know precisely what change of policy the Government want in relation to the application of the Bill.
Many of us have been kept up to a late hour on the Bill. We are entitled to

know precisely why we should be put in this situation by the Government. The Minister owes us an explanation.
The Bill contains a number of useful measures. It has been spoiled only by a very rigid and intransigent attitude on the part of the Government on many aspects. My main point relates to the application and the coming into force of the Bill. In Committee the Minister made a great song and dance about the need to have the Bill passed by 31st May in order that it should apply then so that young people would be able to leave school at that time.
The Opposition gave the Government every co-operation over the Bill. It came from the House of Lords on 18th March. It went into Committee on 13th April. We could have gone into Committee slightly earlier, as the Government were anxious to get the Bill in time. We gave the Bill to the Government out of Committee on 6th May after a relatively small


number of Sittings considering the importance of the Bill.
We thought that giving the Government their programme would give them three weeks between the Committee stage and 31st May, taking into account the Whitsun Recess, which would have enabled the Bill to come into effect on 31st May. I agree that there should have been an interval of one week between the Committee stage and Report and Third Reading, but we could have had Report and Third Reading a fortnight before we rose for the Whitsun Recess.
I ask the Minister to explain what he meant when he said earlier that the Bill has been held up and that it had been impossible for it to come into effect by 31st May. There would have been ample time in the Government's programme for it to have been given Royal Assent by 31st May had the Government not been so determined to push through their various other measures of a Socialist nature in order to please the extreme sections of the Labour Party.
The Minister owes the House an explanation of why those other measures were put through in the light of his remarks at the first Sitting of the Committee as to the need to get Royal Assent by 31st May. We provided plenty of opportunity for the Bill to be dealt with two weeks before the Whitsun Recess. The Minister should now tell the House how he envisages the Bill's application and when it will come into effect to help young people in Scotland who have completed their exams and also had been hoping to leave school on 31st May.

3.16 a.m.

Mr. Younger: Now that we have the Bill in its final form and are being asked to give it a Third Reading, I have two questions for the Minister. I was rather disappointed that the Secretary of State did not answer the quite strong speeches made on the last amendment. That was unfortunate, because he could have added something to the debate.
I should like to know when the Minister expects the proposals to permit local authorities to extend the giving of free school milk to primary school children over seven to come into effect. How soon does he expect local authorities to be allowed to do this? Will the money

they are allowed to spend on this be made available to them, or will the authorities have to take it out of their existing allocations, which are already very severely curtailed? Are local authorities to be given the facility to add to their expenditure in order to do this, or will something have to be curtailed in order to allow it?
Secondly, will the Minister tell us at what time the new provisions concerning school leaving dates, will be fully effective? Now that he has missed the date he was hoping to get, at what point will the measure be fully effective?
When the Bill began its progress, the Opposition were in no sense opposing its principles and were quite happy to give plenty of assistance in getting it through. The Bill could have gone through very much more quickly and would probably have ended up in a better form had there been a little flexibility and give and take.
The Opposition have been constructive and have tried throughout to be cooperative. If this is the speed at which a Bill to which we do not object in any way goes through, heaven help the Government if they produce a measure to which the Opposition fully object.
I supported the Bill on Second Reading. Now that the Third Reading is upon us, I hope that, in view of the way in which the Government have handled its progress, we shall think very carefully about whether the Third Reading should be given such an easy passage. I hope that the Minister will try to answer these very important points.

3.20 a.m.

Mrs. Bain: I was very surprised that the Minister only formally moved the Third Reading, because the Bill has been a compromise all the way through and a hotch-potch, papering over the cracks of the real problems in the Scottish education system.
I have a few comments to make to the Minister and I hope that he will reply a little more clearly this time. He has made great play of the fact that the EIS has accepted the Bill as a major step in the right direction. Whether we like it or not, the most controversial part of the Bill has been the school leaving dates and the EIS has been saying that the Bill is only a compromise. We in the


SNP echo that view, because we do not feel that it comes to terms with the real problems faced by so many teachers in Scottish schools in terms of working with those children and helping them.
The Minister also made great play during Committee about the amount of consultation that he had with interested organisations. He certainly left me and other Opposition Members with the impression that he did not pay much attention to what was said. It would be nice to have a guarantee that all those interested in education are consulted and that attention is paid to their views.
There are four points I would make which go more deeply than that. First, why should we in this House, the elected representatives of people in our constituencies, have to wait for a Bill such as this to come from a non-elected body down the corridor? It is ridiculous that the Government cannot bring it forward in their own right in this House.
Secondly, why are we rushing through the Bill, with a threat all the time from the Minister that if we did not get the Bill through Committee by such and such a time, the teaching profession in Scotland would be up in arms?
Thirdly, why are we having the Report stage and Third Reading at such a late hour? Could we not have had this discussion at a sensible time?
Fourthly, no real answers have been given by the Minister to problems such as teacher unemployment and the need to develop and analyse our whole system and revamp the whole situation. A Scottish Assembly or a Scottish Parliament would not treat Scottish education in this mean and niggardly way.

3.22 a.m.

Mr. Monro: Before we come to a decision on Third Reading I want a much more detailed explanation from the Minister of some of the provisions in the Bill, particularly in relation to the time of night at which we are having to deal with this important measure. He knows perfectly well that the Leader of the House should not have arranged for measures like this to be discussed after midnight. There are two more Bills to be dealt with yet, perhaps more Divisions and lengthy debates until daylight before

we get them through. This is not the way in which to treat important legislation.
I hope that the Minister will at least try to come clean on the important issue which stems directly from this legislation—the position of pupils who leave at 15 years and eight months. He has now put them in a void. They may even be worse off than if they had stayed at school. It is important that he gives a clear indication of their position.
He must not sweep this problem under the carpet by saying that it is not his responsibility. The Secretary of State introduced this legislation. I am surprised that the Secretary of State is not here to wind up the debate on a Third Reading of such importance. I cannot see the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) missing a chance like this.

Mr. William Ross: If I had been winding up this debate, I should have nothing to say, for the simple reason that to my mind everything said so far has been out of order.

Mr. Monro: I am sure that you will not want me to comment on that remark. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am surprised that you have not leaped to your own defence. We want an important announcement from the Minister before the motion is agreed.

3.26 a.m.

Mr. McElhone: The Lords consideration of the Commons amendments is scheduled for 10th June and we hope that Royal Assent will be given on the same day. The provisions which make it necessary for a commencement order to be made at once are those governing the school leaving arrangements. Clause 2 includes provision extending the age range of summer leavers to include leavers, with a sixteenth birthday in late August or early September, who were previously required to stay at school until Christmas. The proposed commencement order would bring the clause into effect on 30th June.
I do not want to answer all the accusations of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain). Hon. Members opposite say that this is a serious and important Bill, yet on the last Division the Conservatives, Liberals and SNP combined mustered 29 votes. That is the


best indictment for the Scottish people of the Conservatives' interest in education.
If I have not answered all the statements of the hon. Member for Glasgow, (Mr. Taylor), it is because he comes up with the same old speech time after time. He is the ace of double standards in this House. He has principles, but if we do not like them, he will change them. It does not help the House to make the outrageous statements he regularly makes.
This is a good Bill, welcomed by many people. It does not meet all the aspirations of the teachers, but, although we have gone through a difficult financial period over the last two and a half years, this Government have provided the best pupil-teacher ratios in Scotland and teachers' salaries have increased on average by 67 per cent. Pupil-teacher ratios of 15:1 in secondary schools and 23:1 in primary schools are a considerable achievement. So I hope that the Opposition will accept that we have tried to help education in Scotland.

3.28 a.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister has ignored direct and practical questions and has given no information even on matters raised in Committee. He has ended with only one defence for the Bill—that the Government have improved pupil-teacher ratios. That improvement has nothing to do with the Minister: it is the direct result of the patient, plodding, hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who put into the colleges the students who are now coming out and enabling Scottish standards of education to improve.
What worries us is that the Minister, who took his job from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) —who had the guts and sincerity to resign because he disapproved of Government policies—is masterminding a policy of deliberately creating teacher unemployment, cutting down on home helps for the elderly and cutting the numbers of school crossing attendants. That is a record to be ashamed of. He is a disgrace to Scottish politics and a disgrace to the Labour Party, which claims to stand for the underdog.
For example, we pointed out that the Bill would allow youngsters to go to work at 15 years and eight months, thus

undermining the principle of the school leaving age of 16. We asked about the sickness and unemployment benefits position of such youngsters, but we have not been told.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has just come in. Perhaps he can answer that question since the Minister in charge of Scottish education is unable to do so. Indeed, we should be glad if any member of the Government could give us the answer. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) can give it as a former Secretary of State for Scotland.
Again, what will be the effect of the Bill on the demand for teachers if we allow younsters to leave school before the sixteenth birthday? The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Selby) made an astonishing speech. He wanted more educational opportunties for children, but the Bill means that they will be able to leave school early, not at 17 or 18, as he would like. It represents a step backward, not forwards.

Mr. Selby: I said that as an aside—it was not my main argument. The hon. Gentleman should stick to the Bill and not go into extraneous matter, as the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) did.

Mr. Taylor: But the whole principle of the Bill is that children should be able to leave school early. The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want that to happen, but it is a fact.
What will be the effect on the employment of teachers? If many children leave school early, fewer teachers will be required. This is not an academic question. For a long time we desperately tried to build up teacher supply, but, as a direct consequence of the Government's policy, we have, for the first time, a Scottish Education Minister deliberately creating teacher unemployment. How much worse will the Bill make the situation? We have asked that question many times, but we have received no answer.
What is the reason for the rigidity of only two leaving dates? We suggested four dates as being sensible, since it would go further in preserving the principle of the school leaving age of 16. The Government are taking a major step with the Bill and the trouble is that we


do not know what the consequences will be. We do not know what the effects on the children will be in relation to unemployment and sickness benefit; we do not know what the effects will be on teacher employment; we have had no assurance about the effects on education standards.
For these reasons, although we approach the Bill in a reasonable and fair way, accepting that it may have been well-intentioned, the unsatisfactory replies by the Government—indeed, in many cases there have been no replies at all—have made many of us have second thoughts about it. Yet it could have been a sensible and practical Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

CROFTING REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is late and we have dealt with an important piece of Scottish legislation, discussion of which was not started until 11 o'clock. We are now moving towards two other important Bills—the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill and the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill—one of which involves 11 Lords amendments. Is it in the best interests of good legislation to continue our proceedings at this late hour?
The Leader of the House was in the Chamber earlier and I hope that he is still in the building. Perhaps he can guide us. There is plenty of time for these debates later in the week on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, when there might be more time. If the Leader of the House is not here, perhaps the Government Chief Whip might advise the House on the Government's intentions for the progress of business tonight.

Mr. George Younger: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is important for those hon. Members who have to plan what to say about the amendments to know whether tonight's business is to go ahead. May

the House have guidance? It is most inconvenient not to know what is to happen.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. These are not matters for the Chair.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On a point of Order Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you be prepared to accept a motion to adjourn the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.

Clause 2

AUTHORISATION BY LAND COURT OF ACQUISITION OF CROFT LAND

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 13, leave out "granted subject to such" and insert
at such nominal annual rent, for such period of not less than 20 years and subject to such other.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I say straight away that I shall propose acceptance of all 11 amendments.
This amendment is the only one with some substance to it. It seeks to clarify what was our original intention.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9

CROFTER'S RIGHT TO SHARE IN VALUE OF LAND RESUMED BY LANDLORD

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 11, line 17, leave out from "Where" to "according" in line 20 and insert:
the land so resumed forms or forms pall of a common grazing, the share of the value of that land payable to the crofters sharing in the common grazing shall be apportioned among such crofters".

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is also to clarify what was the generally agreed intention. We are making it clear that the Land Court will not be required to apportion the share in the common grazing.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13

PROVISION AS RESPECTS REMOVAL OF LAND FROM CROFTING TENURE

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 14, line 10, leave out "the constitution of new crofts or".

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It may be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 11 at the same time. These are purely drafting amendments.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It would be helpful if the Minister explained what was originally intended when the words
the constitution of new crofts
were put in the Bill, and why it is necessary to take them out now. What changes have there been?

Mr. Brown: There is no change in substance. The purpose of the amendments is to excise references to the constitution of new crofts in the Bill and in the Act of 1955. It is no longer appropriate to refer to this function since the power given to the Secretary of State under Section 2(1) of the 1961 Act to constitute new crofts is being repealed in Schedule 3. It is purely a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Schedule 2

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 23, line 24, at end insert:
(3A) At the end of section 1(1) (constitution and general functions of the Commission), there shall be added the words 'and the Crofting Reforms (Scotland) Act 1976'.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with tthe Lords in the said amendment.
I believe that it will be convenient to take at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
These are drafting amendments which follow from a helpful suggestion made

by the Opposition. They make it clear that the Commission's duty to make an annual report should extend to its functions under the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

INCREASED ACCESS TO, AND PROTECTION FOR, FRESHWATER FISHING

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out "access to" and insert "the availability of".

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
3.45 a.m.
I wish to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) who raised, among others, the point contained in this amendment. I am happy to advise the House to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 15, at end insert:
and
(d) he has taken into consideration the need for conservation of any species of fish and has carried out such consultations in this regard as he considers necessary."

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This was an Opposition amendment which was accepted in another place. It makes clear that the Secretary of State in considering applications for a protection order will be required to take into account the need to take into account the conservation of any species of fish. The amendment will commend itself to all fishing interests, and I have no hesitation in commending it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. James Hamilton.]

3.46 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I suspect that fourteen minutes to four in the morning is hardly a suitable hour at which to raise the subject of the compulsory treatment of psychiatric patients. Many people in the country might compare the behaviour of this House with that very concept. However, this is a subject that needs close consideration by this House and, late though the hour is, I am happy that the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security, has decided to answer the debate, because I believe that there are some very important points to answer.
Normally when this subject is raised Parliament interests itself in such matters as more secure accommodation and the protection of the public from psychiatric patients. My point this morning is very much the opposite to that situation. I am interested in the civil liberties of patients as citizens in psychiatric hospitals.
I believe that there is some genuine anxiety about this matter in the country. The recent film "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" highlights some of those anxieties. Those anxieties have arisen because the public is slowly realising that psychiatric treatment is not nearly as reliable or as certain as many psychiatrists make it out to be, or as once it was thought to be. The track record of psychiatrists over the years is not very good, as I know the Minister will accept. In the nineteenth century they were obsessed with masturbation; a few years ago they gave insulin treatment and then dropped it.
Although many psychiatrists are fairly modest and cautious in their claims, others are not. A recently published book by Anthony Clare, "Psychiatry in Dissent", quotes Dr. William Serggant as saying:
Conscience can now be eliminated surgically without any impairment of day to day working efficiency.
The existence of professional arrogance of that kind and the fact that psychiatry

is the only form of medicine where compulsory treatment is administered make it necessary for Parliament to pay special attention to this problem.
Broadly, I want to raise three aspects. The first concerns the use of electroconvulsive therapy, known as ECT. There has been a good deal of disquiet for some time about this. It was made clear on 22nd February this year in a report in The Sunday Times which summed up the three worries as being:
Many psychiatrists believe that ECT causes some degree of long term memory loss.
No properly controlled clinical trial has been made of ECT as a treatment for depression…
Patients have a legal right to refuse ECT treatments even if they are compulsorily detained in mental hospitals and even if they change their mind after previously signing a form giving consent for treatment.
The Department of Health and Social Security seems to gather no statistics whatever about the number of ECT treatments that are performed. This is one of those extraordinary operations where, although it seems to work in some cases, no one can give a scientific explanation why it works. It has been described as being rather like kicking the television set. It has the same sort of success.
Doubts and worries about ECT and the way it is used in hospitals have been enormously increased by the recent and excellently written report of Mr. Inskip QC on the state of affairs at St. Augustine's Hospital, Canterbury. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to two incidents in the report. The first is described as "Incident 6" where a man described as "Mr. G H I" an informal patient, received 30 treatments, many of them without specific authority from the doctor, and ended up with organic cerebral deficit.
"Incident 67" concerned a "Mrs. J K L" who was admitted to hospital with a broken back. She was not examined by her doctor. She had to be carried by four nurses. This woman was given ECT treatment which the doctor ordered without examining her. She died five days later. Both these incidents concerned one doctor. The report makes it clear that St. Augustine's Hospital was not untypical and was no different from


any other psychiatric hospital in the country. The report says of ECT:
These incidents"—
the two I have related—
show how unreal a patient's supposed consent often is, and how tortuous are some of the arguments resorted to in order to avoid facing reality. It is no wonder that there have been unhappiness and misunderstandings in some staff, particularly the younger ones. We are satisfied that a degree of force that exceeds any legitimate persuasion has been used to administer ECT to unwilling informal patients on many occasions. Indeed, it has attracted a jargon of its own.
The report says that doctors did not refer to "force" but to "support".
I have three questions to ask. First, when will the consultative document which will embrace consideration of the ethical nature of these treatments be published? Secondly, what is the Secretary of State doing about the state of affairs shown up at St. Augustine's, and, thirdly, who is responsible for the criminal acts which the report to which I have referred reveals? Is it the responsibility of the Minister or the profession to take action to deal with these criminal acts?
I pass on to psychosurgery, another treatment which has caused a great deal of worry recently. It is a substantial operation which needs a patient's consent. In the past there is no doubt that it has been abused. In The Sunday Times of this week, Dr. Henry Rollin is quoted as saying:
My own hospital is littered with the wrecks of humanity who, in the heyday of this operation 20 years ago, were given little or no option but to undergo prefrontal leucotomies for a variety of psychiatric conditions.
I know that it is not like that anymore. Recently Brook Hospital, where most of the psycho-surgical operations take place, invited three Members of Parliament to visit. I was one of the three, and I was impressed by the lengths to which the authorities went to obtain patients' consent. I was also impressed by the advances in this treatment. However, this was in contrast with a recent television programme put out by Yorkshire TV, called "It's a Bit Frightening". This programme showed a form of psycho-surgery condemned by many psycho-surgeons in the country, and to me it was very frightening indeed. Many people say that this treatment was just as rough

and ready as the old prefrontal leucotomy.
I urge my right hon. Friend to take this deep concern about psycho-surgery very seriously, particularly in view of the fact that the Medical Research Council has been asked by the Royal College of Surgeons for a grant to monitor psychosurgery. It is not a grant to experiment into methods but the danger of getting a large research grant for an operation of this kind, which should be applied in only a tiny number of cases, is that the assistance of that research money increases the number of operations which take place quite unnecessarily. If the Minister has any information about when the MRC is likely to make a final decision on this grant, we would be keen to hear it.
The third subject is the whole area of chemotherapy—the use of drugs on psychiatric patients. At the moment no consent form is needed for many of these drugs, although the effect of psycho-tropic drugs can be more far-reaching than ECT, for example. The Minister of State will remember that in the St. Augustine's report one charge not found substantiated was that there was too heavy use of chemotherapy. The report said that the words "too heavy" were wrong because every single psychiatric hospital in the country indulges in heavy use of these drugs—of phenothiazines. It has been said that modecate and largactil have replaced the padded cell—by drugging patients so that they do not need to be locked up.
Although some psychiatrists consider that these are wonder drugs and are happy with the enormous increase in their use, many people are extremely concerned. These drugs have not been on the market long enough for long-term trials to have been done about the long-term effects they have.
When the Minister prepares his consultation document about consent procedures, will he include in that as well as some canvassing on whether chemotherapy should be included with ECT and psycho-surgery, the consideration whether certain forms of drugs should be included with these other treatments which at the moment need consent? There is a great deal of worry among psychiatric patients about this point. They feel that they are being subjected


to drugs about which they know nothing and which have an effect on their personalities for the rest of their lives.
Has my hon. Friend seen statements put out by the Hackney Patients Union? Those who have seen the sort of spasms which can be induced through the use of some of these drugs believe that very much greater control over their use and proper procedure are necessary. My hon. Friend told me on 13th February that there was to be a review of the psycho-tropic drugs. How is that review going and when may we have the results of it?
I wish to deal with the exact position about consent procedures. It seems clear that informal patients have the absolute right, in theory, to refuse treatment. But everyone knows the meaning of the threat of being sectioned in hospital, with the loss of privileges and the risk of discrimination. As at St. Augustine's hundreds of informal patients receive treatment against their will and without proper consent procedures.
What is the position for formal patients? Clearly, people covered by Section 26 of the Mental Health Act can receive treatment against their will, but many doctors believe that patients detained under Section 25 for observation can also receive treatment against their will. Will my hon. Friend make some sort of definitive statement about whether it is legal to give compulsory treatment under Section 25? I have constituents who have faced this problem.
I hope that the Minister will be able to suggest in the consultation document some tightening of the law and some method to ensure its enforcement. I hope that he will suggest also methods of changing the attitude in the professions, both medical and nursing, to create a far greater respect for the patient as a human being and less reliance on sheer mechanical methods to create docility in psychiatric hospitals. It is no good just relying on the law. We need a strengthening of the law if we are to surmount the situation in our hospitals.
In the long run I believe that it is only when the doctors and nurses realise that they have a job to do in co-operating together in both caring for and treating by medical methods psychiatric patients that we shall get this right. The St.

Augustine's report has caused very widespread worry both in the professions and among the public, and the Minister should be in a position to say something to reassure people.

4.4 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) for raising this important and difficult subject tonight. It is important because patients in our mental hospitals and general hospital psychiatric departments are, perhaps in more ways than most other types of patient, often not in a strong position to be able to speak up for themselves and look after their own best interests. There is a great responsibility on us all, particularly on medical and other staff caring for patients, to ensure that both legal and ethical boundaries are not transgressed.
My hon. Friend talked about concern. There is concern and I share it. This is a difficult subject. It is necessary to maintain a fine balance between two conflicting considerations: on the one hand the patient's right to treatment and the importance of ensuring that treatments of proven efficacy continue to be made available to patients who could benefit from them, sometimes when all other possible treatments have failed; on the other, the danger of abuse, about which my hon. Friend has spoken, and the need to ensure that patients' legal and civil rights and their freedom of choice are fully maintained.
Nearly 90 per cent. of all psychiatric in-patients, as well as all those making up the 1½ million psychiatric out-patient attendances and over 2 million day-patient attendances each year, are informal. That is to say, they are free to come and go as they please; they are free to refuse any form of treatment and medication; and they may discharge themselves from hospital without notice or against medical advice if they wish. No problems should arise on questions of consent to treatment in respect of such informal patients because they are at liberty to refuse any treatment which they object to and, ultimately, are at liberty to discharge themselves from hospital if they so wish.
With regard to detained patients, the Mental Health Act 1959 makes no


specific provision for the obtaining of a patient's consent to treatment. In the case of treatment involving any special risk, the patient, if he is capable of understanding, and the nearest relative should be told what is proposed and the consent of both should if possible be obtained. In practice, a form of treatment involving any special risk should not normally be administered if the patient or his nearest relative objects.
However, where treatment is considered necessary to preserve the life or health including mental health of the patient, it is thought that the administration of such treatment would be unlikely to be questioned particularly if the consent of the nearest relative had previously been obtained. That is the advice that has been given. I may say that a similar interpretation of the law is given by the Medical Defence Union in its booklet "Consent to Treatment".
A number of bodies have expressed some anxiety about the position of a detained patient with regard to treatment, and I would assure my hon. Friend and the House that the comments they have made will be taken fully into account by the interdepartmental committee which is reviewing the Mental Health Act. A consultative document will be published later this year.
All those who have expressed views agree that some kind of additional protection is necessary, at least where the doctor wishes to carry out a radical form of treatment to which the patient does not consent. The Davies Committee on Hospital Complaints Procedures has recommended that a second and independent medical opinion should be obtained in any decision to impose treatment on a detained patient; the Royal College of Psychiatrists feels that a second medical opinion should be sought if the treatment proposed is liable to have irreversible or long-lasting effects; the Report of the Butler Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders contains a very full and useful discussion of the issues involved and it goes on to recommend a procedure which would require a second opinion to be sought before what it terms an "irreversible or hazardous" form of treatment is carried out on a detained patient.
The Butler Report also sets out a formula which provides that only the minimum treatment necessary to prevent a patient from being violent, to save his life or to prevent him from deteriorating should be imposed on him if he is able to appreciate what is involved. The National Association for Mental Health, MIND, has produced a special report on the Mental Health Act written by Mr. Larry Gostin, its legal and welfare rights officer. In this very interesting report, the issue of consent to treatment is discussed at some length and it is suggested that as a solution to the problem a network of committees on the rights and responsibilities of staff and residents of psychiatric hospitals should be set up at national and regional level alongside an advocacy system with the primary functions of making a judgment on the validity of the consent given by a patient to an irreversible or hazardous form of treatment, and providing a second opinion on a proposal to carry out treatment where the patient is incapable of giving a valid consent. The consultative document will discuss all these different suggestions and invite comment on them.
In regard to psychotropic drugs, there is a problem of definition of treatment. We shall be discussing consent to treatment. The committee which is reviewing medicines has already set up a sub-committee to look into the safety and quality of psychotropic drugs. I do not know when the work will have been finished, but it is the earliest category that has been undertaken.
I now refer to my hon. Friend's points on the specific issues. The position is that ECT has been used in this and other countries for approximately 40 years. It is generally regarded within the psychiatric profession as of great and proven value to many patients, especially in the treatment of depression, one of the most common psychiatric illnesses. In deciding whether to administer it, psychiatrists have to take into account a number of factors—not only the patient's diagnosis, but the seriousness and characteristics of his condition, his age and so on. They are generally very much aware that it can cause patients considerable anxiety and accordingly recognise the desirability of giving no more treatments than are


necessary. The average number of treatments given to patients suffering from conditions for which ECT is considered beneficial is normally about six, usually given twice weekly.
There have been controlled clinical trials into the use of ECT, and these indicate that it is quick in producing a beneficial response and free from serious side effects. The MRC has advised that there is no evidence that ECT given in the proper manner and with proper safeguards causes brain damage, a commonly made criticism of this treatment.
My hon. Friend has mentioned two rather horrifying cases of abuse that have been commented on in the recent report. Comments of especial relevance to this debate are contained in the report. The first dealt with the efficacy of ECT against possible drawbacks in the treatment. It stated:
" It is probably the most effective treatment for moderate or severe depressive illness…and those using it must, as in all forms of treatment, consider whether the expected benefits from it outweigh the risks and disadvantages."
My hon. Friend asked who is responsible for handling the St. Augustine report. It will require action by the regional health authority in as much as the authority is the employer of some of the people concerned. The area health authority employs the other staff. The report is being sent to all regional health authorities, area health authorities and districts.
We think that some of the lessons contained in the report are of common application. My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited St. Augustine's and has made it quite clear that he intends to give special attention to the problems of mental illness in the light of his longstanding interest in this topic. He is considering what measures we can undertake to try to prevent a repetition of this and other incidents in some of our psychiatric hospitals.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will my hon. Friend consider drawing the St. Augustine's report to the attention of the professions, so that if necessary they can take the sort of disciplinary action with which Parliament has charged them?

Dr. Owen: The only body of disciplinary action is the General Medical Council. I should be surprised if the council has not read a copy of the report. It is, of course, charged by Parliament, but it is independent of Parliament. The whole basis of the system is that it is a self-regulating profession. However, I shall ascertain whether a copy of the report has found its way to the council. The other copies are for the employing authorities.
My hon. Friend mentioned psycho-surgery. I recognise that this is a matter that causes concern. It involves the division of brain tissue with the aim of relieving psychiatric symptoms and is usually performed when all other forms of treatment have proven unsuccessful, when the condition is chronic and only in very carefully selected cases. It is very rarely performed at all on detained patients, even those anxious to receive treatment, and those informal patients who undergo the operation will need to have given their informed consent to it.
A number of scientific studies, some of them of high quality, are available which bear on the effectiveness and risks of psycho-surgery as now performed. From these studies it is clear that it has been of considerable benefit to some patients. As regards the specific research projects that the MRC is now considering, I am informed that consideration of the application is still at a preliminary stage.
My hon. Friend also mentioned anxieties about chemotherapy. There is cause for concern when too undue a reliance is placed on chemotherapy, but I must stress to him and to people generally that psychiatric illness can be very severe. It is not the same as an illness which requires an operation, or involves risks which are normally associated with operations. We should not forget that depression is an extremely common cause of suicide whereas severe pain very rarely leads to suicide. Depression and many psychiatric illnesses are very severe illnesses.
It is therefore reasonable for doctors to weigh up very carefully the balance of advantage to the patient. Sometimes they will advise treatment which, without doubt, may have in isolation some risks


attached to it, and some disadvantages. They have to make that most difficult judgment of all—namely, what is in the best interests of the patient.
It is right, however, that Parliament should consider the safeguards that we already have in our existing law, and in practice, with great care. It is a difficult balance that has to be made and I think it is time that we had a substantial review of the workings of the current Act. I hope that the consultative document that we shall publish will stimulate a wide debate and that we can reach some consensus on the changes and adaptations to the Act that are needed, and that the legislation can come before the House within a reasonable period. I think that everyone would accept that.
The Mental Health Act paved the way in this country with substantial changes of great benefit to patients. In many ways it was a pioneer in the world. It now needs to be examined. We now need to consider patient rights with extreme care.
I shall not forget the points that my hon. Friend has raised in this debate. They will go forward into the coming debate on the Act. I am grateful to him for bringing these important issues to us.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Four o'clock a.m.